19 Oct 2004 | JF said...

I'm still undecided, yes. I think it will come down to a gut decision at the end of the day. I know all I need to know -- nothing anyone will say at this point will sway me (especially since everything said at this point is borderline desperate). I'm am leaning towards science over religion though. Or maybe I'll go third party again. I just don't know yet, which is, I guess, what makes me undecided.

But I will say this. My vote is my vote (just like yours is yours) and anyone who bitches at me about it or calls it wasted or whatever is wasting their energy. So save it.

19 Oct 2004 | Wilson said...

I'm still undecided too. I feel so much ambivalence about the candidates, and my leaning keeps changing from day to day. Like Jason, it would come down to a gut decision on election day. I'm starting to feel that it would be more civically responsible of me not to vote, rather than cast an uncommited vote based on which way I'm leaning between two people I can't be convinced about on an arbitrary day in November. But I live in Kansas, so my vote doesn't matter anyway.

19 Oct 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I'm NOT undecided ... but I'm not sure who I want to win.

(I'm voting for a he-can't-win third party candidate, as I have since 1984)

19 Oct 2004 | LNJ said...

I'm undecided as well. I don't want to vote for Bush, I can't imagine voting for Kerry. Other than that, I disagree with people who say things like, "lesser of two evils", or "devil you know". I'd rather have someone I can trust and I don't think that it is either man.

I've voiced an opinion here before about 3rd party and all that. I do agree with that and that is the way I am currently leaning.

I would like to vote for a winner, but then again, if I vote I win enough, as I cast my lot and had my say. (cheesey, I know, but I had to do it). The good news is that I DO know who I am voting for for Senator and State Assemblyperson... that's a plus.

19 Oct 2004 | Realish said...

I wouldn't have said this about any of the candidates in 1988, or 1992, or 1996, or even 2000, but I'll say it this year: A vote for Bush is stupid and irresponsible.

He has been a disaster for this country on every level. We're less secure, less respected, and less financially well-off. The deficit is huge and growing. More people have no health insurance. More people are below the poverty line. The legislative process has been utterly warped. Environmental protections are being rolled back. And we are under greater danger from nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Bush's foreign policy marks a disastrous break from a 50-year post-war tradition of global leadership.

I can respect being a Republican or a Libertarian. I understand the benefits of small government, moral integrity, strong defense. I do not begrudge those parties their votes. But Bush has done *nothing* that can even plausibly be construed as supporting the goals and principles of those parties. There is nothing -- not empirical reality, not any set of political principles -- that justifies a vote for Bush.

Screw what you think about Kerry. When the patient's bleeding, the first responsibility is to stop the bleeding. This is not "desperate," this is simply factual. Go read the newspapers.

19 Oct 2004 | Don Schenck said...

A thread about being undecided, and Realish weighs in anti-Bush.

Brilliant.

19 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

I was undecided between Kerry and Nader until I saw last weeks' Frontline's 2-hour documentary on the candidates last week. I feel much better voting for Kerry now.

As for being undecided between Bush and Kerry...I find that hard to understand. For those of you that are...what, excatly, are you undecided about?

19 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

That was one poorly worded response. Sorry 'bout that.

19 Oct 2004 | Dusty said...

I won't be voting in this years presidential election. I can't decide because I don't have confidence in either major candidate. My vote is a vote of "No Confidence".

Venturing offtopic:

What's more interesting to me, being from Texas, is this years congressional elections. While I don't respect either party, I respect balance between them.

If the R's take congress again (and it's looking that way) and the D's lose the presidential again (too close to say) then we can kiss the semi-independant SCOTUS's ass goodbye.

19 Oct 2004 | Andy said...

I go the "incremental change in the direction I want" route. The candidate I would want to vote for would never get elected. I'm ok with that... democracies move slowly.

19 Oct 2004 | R. Marie Cox said...

Any undecided voter -- hell, all voters should watch Frontline's "The Choice 2004".

19 Oct 2004 | sharky's machine said...

I am undecided and very unhappy. I wish there was a real "idea" guy - or hell, just a centrist who could get the 2 sides working again. I am unhappy with the man who surrounds himself with decision makers (and bad ones at that) or a ultra-rich guy who bitches about an unfair "tax cut to the wealthy" while he himself work the system for a 10% tax bracket. The only thing I would like to punch this coming November is both of those f'n assholes in the face. Regardless of who wins, we lose.

19 Oct 2004 | Nick said...

Undecided, and probably won't vote at all.

There are several problems with the way we run our presidential elections in this country. Probably the biggest one is the electoral college. It's absolutely ridiculous that in the most powerful nation in the world, every citizen's vote isn't counted equally. The electoral college was a makeshift system put in by our forefathers to supposedly solve the problem of uninformed voters living in rural areas without access to the current information on the running candidates.

Living in an age now where information is around you everywhere, 24/7 being an uninformed voter is pretty hard to find unless you've been living in a cave. So why not change the system right? Hard to believe the the states with the most electoral votes are going to give up this system easily. And good luck trying to amend the constitution. So whats the point? When you can pretty much live in a state that will give one candidate the most votes and have him/her lose the election?

19 Oct 2004 | engelgrafik said...

Not only is our electoral college ridiculous (I love people who still try to support it as something that is a good thing for whatever reason) in this day and age, the entire pre-election process is a sham.

When have you ever taken a serious poll or survey where they told you up front what the breaks were?

In America, we are told what each State is "looking like" months and months before the election.

This should be ILLEGAL. NOBODY should know which way a State seems to be going before an election. There should be NO exit polls. There should be NO reports on counties and States that have turned in their numbers.... not until it is declared who has won.

ANY psychologist or sociologist can tell you that many many people vote for WHO THEY THINK WILL WIN. Well, when they watch TV and they can see which way things are swaying, those people will vote what the majority or plurality is voting.

In the words of Bob Odenkirk, "it's a travesty, a sham and a mockery -- it's a travishamockery!!"

19 Oct 2004 | brian breslin said...

I think it was jon stewart on crossfire who said he didn't understand how people could be undeceided between the two candidates, as they are such polar opposites.

How about this for an idea, if you are unhappy with the current president's performance, then try someone else (anyone, I don't care, be it Nader, or Bush, or yourself as a write-in).

I mean it boils down to the economy, and the fact that tons of people are out of work or cannot find suitable work (I myself am part of this boat, as fewer and fewer jobs in internet related businesses are willing to hire people and give them permanent positions with health benefits). Sorry for the rant, I tried to make it as non-partisan as I could.

19 Oct 2004 | David Ham said...

To echo Darrel's question: Undecideds, what are you still mulling over? What about the two candidates is giving you pause? I do not intend this to sound facetious or disrespectful; it's a big choice and should be made thoughtfully. I'm just curious as to how people go about making their decision.

Thanks,

OK
DAH

19 Oct 2004 | monkeyinabox said...

Voting is like deciding between buying Mac or PC. It's so clear to some and mystical to others. Something that seems like a no-brainer to me, is a tough choice for you. What do I win, what do I lose? How should I know what to choose?

19 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

I won't be voting in this years presidential election. I can't decide because I don't have confidence in either major candidate.

For the non-voters, please consider voting for a 3rd party candidate if you are not voting simply to protest the lack of quality in 'viable' candidates. One way to get rid of the bland 2-party system is to get more folks up to the 'legitimate candidate' status.

Any undecided voter -- hell, all voters should watch Frontline's "The Choice 2004".

I said it, so did Marie, and I'll say it again: If you haven't seen this...DO see it. It's by far the best piece on both candidates I've seen. I had much more respect for both candidates (admittedly different kinds of respect) after seeing that show.

The electoral college was a makeshift system put in by our forefathers to supposedly solve the problem of uninformed voters living in rural areas without access to the current information on the running candidates.

Well, that's one way to frame it. You could also argue that it was put in place so that candidates didn't simply focus on/pander to the more populated states.

But I agree, we really need to be pushing for dropping it, getting instant run-off going, and, what I'd like to see is a system closer to Canada's, where if it's time for elections, someone says so, everyone has a month or two to state their case, and you vote.

These would go a long way towards reducing the problems engelgrafik points out.

19 Oct 2004 | stp said...

Like many, I find it hard to believe anybody is truly undecided between Bush and Kerry. However, I can understand those who are undecided between, say, Kerry and Nader, or even voting vs. not voting. To those in the last group, I just want to say, please vote for somebody. Anybody. But don't sit on the sidelines. Voting is your right and privilege as an American. Voluntarily giving up your rights is never the solution to anything. Dissatisfied with the two party system? Can't fault you there -- but how does staying home help the cause? Third parties wouldn't be so marginalized if people actually voted for their candidates. Disgusted by the two main players? Again, that's not uncommon. But this time around we at least have two extremely different agendas to choose from. You can pick the one that at least in some way lines up with your personal beliefs, or you can say 'none of the above' by voting for someone else. If the 2000 elections taught us anything, it is that the outcome of any election can change dramatically with just a few votes. Your vote counts. Your vote is important. Your vote can change the world.

Unless you stay home.

19 Oct 2004 | Eamon said...

I just can not understand undecideds. No one ever says, "You know, I love baseball, but until someone fields a team with at least 6 batters who hit over .400, at least 3 pitchers with ERAs under 1.5, and a coach with at least 5 championship seasons, I just can't watch." This system of government is not designed to create your ideal candidate. It is a republic. It is a loosely joined series of checks and balances that produce workable candidates for reasonable people. We pick the people who make the decisions. If you're sure you have better answers, run for office. If not, cross your fingers and pick one. I would absolutely, positively rather see people pick the lesser of two (or three) evils than not choose at all.

19 Oct 2004 | Eamon said...

That said, I do think instant run-off is an interesting alternative. But we're not there, yet, and just plain not voting isn't going to make it happen any sooner.

19 Oct 2004 | Phil said...

Realish hit the nail on the head. This election is much different than any of us have voted for before. The only responsible thing to do is vote Bush out of office, which like it or not, means a vote for Kerry.

I don't understand the concept of not voting because you can't decide or don't like the candidates. Have none of you ever faced a tough decision before? A decision where ALL of the options sucked? Almost never is there a "none of the above" option in life. No candidate is going to be perfect on every count so study them hard and figure it out.

Like Geddy Lee of Rush said in the song Free Will, "Choose not to decide and you still have made a choice".

19 Oct 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Amazing that the Bush-haters just cannot keep from commenting in a biased voice. Amazing.

This is about UNDECIDED voters. You have decided. Go play outside.

Seriously; Go Play Outside.

I can understand being undecided. You think "so-and-so" has a good handle on this issue, but he's so lame over here. On the other hand ... and on and on it goes. I can totally understand it.

Kind of like being torn between a good Pinot Noir and a good single malt. Decisions, decisions ...

19 Oct 2004 | JF said...

I just can not understand undecideds.

Are you certain of everything you do? If you are you might want to think twice. If you're not, then you understand how people can be undecided. If you're undecided at times about small decisions, it's even easier to be undecided about a huge decision such as who should lead the country over the next 4 years.

19 Oct 2004 | DaleV said...

Ah . . . always good to see someone bring Rush into a thread! Thanks, Phil!

I've decided and I'm voting.

19 Oct 2004 | Richard said...

Maybe a better question for Bush leaners or supporters or truly undecideds is: who would you like to see running against Bush (any party) that would get your vote and "decide" you?

Or, put another way, if you don't like Kerry and that's what's making you undecided, who would you rather have in Kerry's place who would tip you that way?

19 Oct 2004 | ek said...

For those who've said they aren't voting, I would second the recommendation made earlier to at least write someone in, but in any case, I hope you mean that you just won't be voting for President.

Whatever you think of the candidates for the big job, there are plenty of local candidates and local issues for which, whatever state you live in, your vote most certainly DOES MATTER.

So if you don't like Bush or Kerry (or Nader, if he's on the ballot in your state) go ahead and leave that field blank or write someone in, but PLEASE DO GO AND VOTE. It's about a lot more than just the presidency, it's about what happens in your state, county, city, district and neighborhood.

I don't want to sound too corny, but we have a lot of courageous people spread across the world literally risking their lives for us every day and if you can't take it upon yourself to get your pampered ass out to the voting booth on Nov. 2nd you don't deserve the freedoms you have.

Your vote is your business, but to vote is everyone's business.

19 Oct 2004 | JF said...

Or, put another way, if you don't like Kerry and that's what's making you undecided, who would you rather have in Kerry's place who would tip you that way?

I like Biden a lot.

19 Oct 2004 | Eamon said...

I don't think I've ever spent more than 60 seconds deciding between two forms of alcohol. What's weighing the nose of one versus the peatiness of the other for several hours going to do, other than kill your buzz? Pick one!

And, for the record, yeah, I'm pretty certain of everything I do. I plan, I think, I act, I reflect, I apologize or I gloat. I guess my problem is that it's going to be significantly harder to make a careful decision as the date nears, not easier.

Oh, and finally: GO BACK TO RUSSIA AND YOUR CHEAP DRUGS, RUSH LOVERZ!!~!

19 Oct 2004 | Richard said...

EK, well said.

There are many reasons to be undecided:

1. candidates too close (if you think this, you are not reading)

2. candidate you want isn't running (as EK says, go write him/her in)

3. cynical about system, my vote means nothing, etc. (understandable, but vote anyway just because it's one of the processes that defines us, yes, US)

Make a list of issues or things that are important to you that you want to compare Bush, Kerry, and the other candidates on (yes, there are other candidates) and then get to work reading. And not just political spin and weblogs but serious stuff. See how things fall.

Some people who are decided are decided not just because they're lifelong party loyalists but because they participate in Democracy by reading, daily, from a variety of sources to form their opinions. I find it amazing that someone could be doing that and not have a leaning, one way or another.

19 Oct 2004 | Chris Vincent said...

"Amazing that the Bush-haters just cannot keep from commenting in a biased voice. Amazing."

Yes, this is a thread about being undecided. Thus, there are undecided people here. Thus, you'll have people that want to help such people come to a decision based on the way they came to theirs. I don't think it's a crime (until it turns into spin); it's human nature.

Characterizing someone who reasonably criticizes someone a "hater" is certainly not helpful to the thread, or democracy for that matter.

19 Oct 2004 | sloan said...

I know a few undecideds that are mainly Republicans that are not so much for Bush as for what the party's traditional values are. If you have moral issues with abortion for instance, but think Bush is a thoughtless, spend happy freak, you might still vote for him because you think the abortion issue takes top billing. For many people, it isn't so cut and dry. For people with such conflicting issue points, I can see the dillemma. On the other hand, I have a friend who says she is voting for Bush but cannot tell me any reason why except she "likes" him. Of course, she does not have to justify her vote to me, but it worries me that people take something as important as voting for granted and do not take the time to make an informed decision. In this day and age of information overload, to not even go out and visit his website to see where he stands on the issues is downright infuriating. Get informed, get invovled, and make the best decision that you can. I can respect that even if I do not agree with your choice. Not voting is ridiculous. If you do not voice your protest when it counts, you do not count.

19 Oct 2004 | Realish said...

Bush or Dukakis. Bush or Clinton. Clinton or Dole. Bush or Gore in 2000. These were reasonable choices. Reasonable people decided differently based on different reasonable considerations.

This year is not like that. The only conceivable non-insane reason to vote for Bush is, as someone said upthread, you "like" him. That is, you've listened to his campaign talk about his character, what's in his heart, his resolve, his values, etc. etc.

However, if you tear your eyes away from his "heart" and look out into the world, into reality, the decision makes itself.

It is the consensus opinion of foreign policy and security experts that Bush has horribly botched the war on terror by going into Iraq, and has made us less safe. It in the consensus opinion of economists that Bush's tax cuts enriched a few already wealthy people, did nothing to stimulate the economy, and left us deeply in debt. The environment, civil rights, the integrity of the legislative process -- he's left them all worse off than he found them.

Bush has served no one but a few wealthy cronies and large industries. He has been a disaster for this country. That's not just my opinion, it's not just partisan spin, it is as close to FACT as anything can be in the socio-political world.

This is not a normal year, not a normal election. There is no responsible reason to vote for Bush.

19 Oct 2004 | David Ham said...

Not to be annoying, but: Undecideds, what are you still deciding on? What questions do you have about the candidates? What issues are important to you, and what aren't you getting from the candidates about them?

How are you making your decision?

19 Oct 2004 | Richard said...

Bush or Gore in 2000. These were reasonable choices. Reasonable people decided differently based on different reasonable considerations.

Reasonable people elected Gore President in 2000. That's one of the many reasons we have so much bitterness now.

Before you all rant that we're sore losers, don't forget that the results of that election are still contested and most impartial reviewers think Gore won.

But, that was the beginning of our current serious polarization and I would argue (and do often) that Bush has done nothing to unite us as he said he would when sworn in. Had he put some time into that I don't think we'd be as polarized as we are now. He also blew the post 9/11 "let's all get together as Americans and help one another" possibility with Iraq frenzy, the Patriot Act, terror alert color debates and more. These things are the things that give people who might otherwise be for him pause.

So, I would argue that Kerry aside, Bush is singly responsible for polarizing America. The piece that makes it more complex is that Kerry, for many Kerry supporters (reluctantly me), is not an ideal choice.

19 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

Bush has done nothing to unite us as he said he would when sworn in.

From the sounds of it, he can't even unite his own party. There's talk of a complete split in the republican party if Bush wins this election. That's almost a reason *to* vote for him. ;o)

So, I would argue that Kerry aside, Bush is singly responsible for polarizing America.

Part of his strategy. He's pulling it off well.

20 Oct 2004 | Mick said...

I'm voting for Bush but I would rather vote for Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain

20 Oct 2004 | Kevin said...

To the undecided, select the candidate that shares a majority of the values, beliefs and positions that you hold. If you are still undecided, vote for the political party that shares a majority of the values, beliefs and positions that you hold.

If you are still yet undecided, consider this: The left tends to think legally, the right tends to think morally. Cast your vote accordingly.

20 Oct 2004 | Jon said...

Bush, Kerry, Nader, Firefox 1.0 - vote something!

It's sad to see such a priveledge go wasted. Only 40% of Amercia will probably end up voting and we have the luxury of driving an air-conditioned car to the polls. We are too spoiled. Atleast we have a choice. This year Afganistans walked through fields of land mines, gun fire, etc. just to have the honor of voicing their opinion for the first time.

20 Oct 2004 | ~bc said...

I, too, am surprised that anyone is still undecided. More so, I am surprised that you JF are still undecided, feeling almost that I know you through the years on the blog. I'm curious mostly as to why you would be considering voting for Bush. What particularly does he do/ stand for that would make you consider him? (honest question, not veiled rhetorical question) From past interactions, it would seem as if you were of a liberal-independent stance, as I consider myself.

Personally, I'm strongly favor Kerry. I voted for Nader in 2000, but no one understood the stakes. The thing to note in my opinion is until we get instant-runoff voting, that you have to vote for the person that will move the country marginally in your direction, until we can get the freedom of actually choosing who we want with out unintentionally electing the person most don't want. In my opinion, voting reform will have a chance under Kerry, and absolutely none for the man flawed voting paid off for: Bush.

20 Oct 2004 | Andy said...

I can't vote, as I am in the UK. But I think a lot of people here are hoping on Kerry's behalf. I know that I am.

I don't believe that Kerry would show weakness, I think that he would display strong, considerate leadership, and really help the US become a better considered player in global politcs, rather than, what is often seen here as bullying tactics, and lack of consideration for anything other than American interests from the Bush Administration.

20 Oct 2004 | indi said...

Well, like the open minded individual that I am (don't laugh), I watched the online version of the Frontline program linked to by this thread. It become clear very quickly that this was a thinly veiled ad for John Kerry for president. Honestly, go ahead and watch it and pretend you don't know anything about both candidates and see who is being shown in a better light. It even ends by pointing out that John Kerry wants to make friends with the world again while George Bush has ambitions of leaving a really big footprint on history.

So, if you are undecided but kinda like Kerry, watch the program so you can back up your good feelings and tip the rest of the way for him.

20 Oct 2004 | Richard said...

I voted for Nader in 2000, but no one understood the stakes.

Ah, excuse me, you did not understand the stakes, many of us did and we voted for Gore only to have the Supreme Court undermine our votes, and now we're watching a whole new crop of people not understand the stakes and you somehow think this is different?

Wake up people, Bush was dangerous in 2000 and now, if you are paying attention, you should know he is dangerous.

Bush had a record as Governor of Texas, and everyone reading this should have known what was: killed education in the state, executed more people than any Governor in history, and through his wonderful reshuffling of tax law, created a deficit in the Texas state budget where there wasn't before. Uh, hello, he had a record and the stakes were known.

Not to mention he had never been out of the country and knew nothing about the rest of the world and US foreign policy. This was made absolutely clear in the debates, which somehow were spun as him winning because he didn't drool.

The stakes were high in 2000 and they are just as high now.

20 Oct 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

ek's post resonated with me as well. I've already voted (by absentee ballot as I'm now living in Canada but registered in Vermont). But what struck me when I got the ballot was that, because I've been so focused on the federal election and am no longer tuned in with my former state and local news sources, I didn't even think about the other races that might be going on at the state and local levels. I didn't realize there was a governor's race going on, or that our congressman (yes, only one for the whole state) was up for re-election, or that there were a number of local government slots in contest. I found myself facing indecision a number of times when filling out my ballot and wishing I'd been better informed. I don't generally vote by party, I vote for the person, but I didn't know most of these people or what they stood for. So to add to ek's point about voting even if you don't vote for a presidential candidate, I'd also say, "take time to learn about your local candidates and the issues at stake so you can make an informed decision when you vote." Should be obvious, but especially in presidential election years it's easy to lose sight of the issues at stake in your own community.

20 Oct 2004 | Richard said...

Republican Switchers looks like a site that might help move a few off the fence.

20 Oct 2004 | Kevin said...

I believe that people who have labeled themselves undecided may simply enjoy the limelight. They like hearing about themselves every night on the evening news, reading about themselves in the newspapers, vis--vis "Undecided voters are still the key" (http://www.freep.com/news/politics/zogby5e_20041005.htm). The undecided masses wear such headlines as a badge of honor. Being a part of a group gives such individuals a sense of belonging, as they feel their party has abandoned them. When in reality the party hasnt intentionally abounded anyone, but instead their party dynamic is undergoing change.

If you are undecided because some of your beliefs are not represented by a particular party, get off your @$$ and get to work, get involved in your party. Not voting, or selecting a candidate that has no chance to win is not the solution. Sway opinions, move your party to where you think it should be. It is impossible to agree with everything a particular candidate stands for, so stop trying. Vote for the candidate that shares most of the values and beliefs you share.

20 Oct 2004 | Don Schenck said...

From the world of sports: You're never as good as they say you are, and you're never as bad as they say you are.

Kerry's not as bad as the Republicans would have you believe; Bush isn't the Hitler that some Democrats would have you believe.

The arguments presented here against Bush are convincing. But I can come up with just as many valid arguments against Kerry.

(WARNING: BIASED OPINION COMING)

As a Libertarian, I look back at the 1996 election when Harry Browne pointed out the difference between President Clinton and Bob Dole: "One party wants to grow the government by 14 percent a year; The other wants to grow it by seven percent a year. That's a choice?"

In that context, it's easy to be undecided. What are those who do not want a bigger government to do? Vote third party, or remain undecided, or not vote.

20 Oct 2004 | Charlie said...

I'm undecided. Not about Bush or Kerry ... but about which third-party candidate to vote for. It'll almost certainly be Nader, for whom I also voted in 2000. In the end, we'll see.

http://vote-smart.org/ is a great site for info on third-party candidates, as well as for local elections.

20 Oct 2004 | Kevin said...

What are those who do not want a bigger government to do?

Voting for a particular candidate to become President should not be a one issue decision, e.g., which will grow the government more. Youll never get anything done if you attempt to focus on one issue, compromise is always required.

What are those who do not want a bigger government to do?

For this single issue I would select the candidate whose party (Democrat or Republican) is for smaller government.

20 Oct 2004 | JF said...

Voting for a particular candidate to become President should not be a one issue decision, e.g., which will grow the government more. Youll never get anything done if you attempt to focus on one issue, compromise is always required.

Well, the thing is that the size of government is not a single issue -- it touches every single other issue. For some (me included), it's the issue. It's the fundamental issue since it's a baseline philosophical one.

20 Oct 2004 | Kevin said...

JF

If government being too large is "The Issue" for you, then voting democratic is not a logical choice.

20 Oct 2004 | R. Marie Cox said...

I'm not sure that the Frontline special was a thinly veiled anything. It was simply a glimpse into the pasts of both men and how that past impacts their actions in the present and could possibly shed light onto their actions in the future.

But maybe anything is pro-Kerry if it doesn't feed the character assassination machine that's been pounding away for the past months...?

Besides, it showed Bush as who he is and highlighted the qualities that people who support him are drawn to; being decisive, bold, committed, religious, in charge. I'm sorry but I really fail to see how this program didn't show both candidates in a good light.

20 Oct 2004 | Randal Rust said...

For those of you who are undecided...

You need to look at the experience of the candidates in leadership roles.

You need to look at how the policies of previous administrations affect the current administration.

You need to face the reality that labor in the United States has shifted dramatically, and that shift requires new skills for the displaced worker.

You need to understand economics, and how things like federal deficits and increased taxes actually affect your daily life.

You need to understand what kind of an impact a President actually has on your day-to-day life, and when his policies actually begin to have an effect.

You need to understand that, once upon a time, Germany and France had no choice but to join us in coalitions, because the United States was the only thing keeping the Soviet Union off their backs.

You need to understand that once the Cold War ended, the world changed.

You need to understand that after 9/11, the world changed.

Don't listen to the rhetoric of either side. Educate yourself so that you can actually understand what people are saying.

When it comes to making a decision based on a man's character, you need to look at what a man says, and how he backs it up. Consistency is the measure of a man.

You also need to understand that, quite often, the media takes things out of context.

You need to understand that the media in this day in age has stopped reporting the news, so much as it is concerned with making the news.

And maybe most of all, you need to understand that this is America, where your right to vote is something that millions of American's have died for.

20 Oct 2004 | Phil said...

I agree with R. Marie Cox about the Frontline piece. The truth is the truth, whether it shows the president in a good light or not. If I review the last Vikings game and say Dante Culpepper was amazing, it's not a thinly veiled ad campaign for Dante Culpepper. The truth is he dominated and I reported on it accurately. Conservatives like inidi always cry fowl when a news story shows the ugly truth about someone in the Republican party. As a liberal, I didn't cast the same dispersions when the media harped on Clinton 600 times a day for his lie about his sex life. That was ugly and I was ashamed of a man I held in high regard, but I didn't blame the media for telling me the truth.

20 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

I watched the online version of the Frontline program linked to by this thread. It become clear very quickly that this was a thinly veiled ad for John Kerry for president.

This is what irks me. This constant 'liberal media' perception that doesn't exist. You've been duped into thinking that.

Please point out any inaccuracies in that Frontline show. I don't even think it put Bush in a bad light. It showed him as a candidate with an incredibly strong offense. It showed him as a very inteligent person, albeit one that uses a completely different set of decision making processes than Kerry does.

We've been duped into thinking that any true analysis of Mr. Bush is 'liberal propaganda'. Again, part of Bush's strategy. If anyone watches the Frontline show and finds it bush-bashing, then they are in denial of who Mr. Bush is.

For this single issue I would select the candidate whose party (Democrat or Republican) is for smaller government.

Just remember that the there is a rather large difference between what many candidates SAY they are for and what they actually ARE for.

Also, for those voting on that issue, what is it about big government that you are against/for?

If government being too large is "The Issue" for you, then voting democratic is not a logical choice.

And voting for Bush should certainly be out of the question.

You need to understand that after 9/11, the world changed.

As Bill Maher said, the only thing that changed after 9/11 was the rhetoric. I think Bill is a bit loony, but he was right about that. Namely, we just have more of it, and less real information. Without a doubt, deciding who to vote for is not becoming an easier process for folks.

20 Oct 2004 | R. Marie Cox said...

I agree with pretty much everything Randal says, save for "Consistency is the measure of a man." because I have personally known some very consistent screw-ups in my time.

Oh, and the new skills point; as a programmer seeing tech jobs shipped overseas, it is simply not an option to think it is only the lack of skills that is costing this country jobs.

But the thrust of what Randal is getting at -- that an undecided voter needs to open his or her eyes to distortions brought on by the nature of politics is spot on.

20 Oct 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

Consistency is the measure of a man.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

(the only Ralph worth paying attention to these days...)

20 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

Consistency is the measure of a man.

Consistency can either be a sign of intelligence OR ingorance. ;o)

20 Oct 2004 | indi said...

OK, I take it back. The Frontline piece wasn't a thinly veiled ad for Kerry ... it was a thickly veiled ad for Kerry.

Didn't you notice how often Kerry was show as being a deep thinker, seeing all sides of an issue and how he is always influenced by his time in Viet Nam? Gee, just like his campaign ads. They even used the term "nuanced" in describing him. Did they show him voting against funding for troops in Iraq? No. Even though the full context of his reasoning does show he had good reasons -- it is too close to current events and plays into the bush campiagn.

But they did show Bush refusing to stay the execution of a condemned, but born again murderess, even though church leaders pleaded for mercy. They use that as an example of his decisiveness and resolve. They could have also showed more about his resolve to go after the terrorists ... but they didn't. Why?

Oh and Iraq? Why, Bush was planning all along to go into Iraq. Too bad when he actually went in using 9/11 as a pretext after the short diversion of Afhganistan (or some similar words) he didn't plan what to do after Saddam was toppled. And things are really really bad there now. Did they interview any Iraqis or soldiers over there on the ground to show boths sides? I hear most of the troops over there support Bush and are constantly being thanked by Iraqis and asked not to leave too soon. Was that reported? No.

And what of Kerry's time in the senate? Other than spearheading the search for MIAs and POWs in Viet Nam (a worthy effort) and voting against the first Gulf War (because he didn't want another Viet Nam) what did he do?

Oh, but Bush pushed through his tax cuts even though he strongly divided the Republican party to the point where there was a defection of a Republican Senator to the democrats ... and divided the country. Did they mention that he got the child left behind act passed with bipartisan support ... but was later stabbed in the back by Ted Kennedy? That he did reach across the aisle as he did in Texas but was slapped down by partisan politics?

I could go on, but I won't. The people who put together the Frontline piece were just much better at hiding their bias than Michael Moore. Maybe they don't even know they are biased.

20 Oct 2004 | Randal Rust said...

I agree with pretty much everything Randal says, save for "Consistency is the measure of a man." because I have personally known some very consistent screw-ups in my time.

Consistency can either be a sign of intelligence OR ingorance. ;o)

And therefore is it the measurement of that person.

In my experience, people who are consistent in their words and actions are more trustworthy and dependable than those who are not -- even those who I have philosophical differences with.

20 Oct 2004 | Andy said...

I hear most of the troops over there support Bush and are constantly being thanked by Iraqis and asked not to leave too soon.

I'm not surprised by the first part of this sentence, although 'most' is kind of vague, but the second part? Constantly? Do you read the papers?

20 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

Didn't you notice how often Kerry was show as being a deep thinker, seeing all sides of an issue and how he is always influenced by his time in Viet Nam? Gee, just like his campaign ads. They even used the term "nuanced" in describing him. Did they show him voting against funding for troops in Iraq?

Voting on bills in congress is an inredibly complex thing. The bill was a bit more complex than 'do you support the troops or not'.

As for the piece, yes it showed Kerry as being one that sees the world as being very complex (to a fault, even) and Bush as being one that sees the world in much simpler terms. That is pretty much how they are. Bush is who he is.

But they did show Bush refusing to stay the execution of a condemned, but born again murderess, even though church leaders pleaded for mercy.

It was used to show how Bush reacts to controversy. I think it showed pretty clearly that when Bush makes a decision, he's made it. No amount of outcry is going to get him to alter his decision. I think some folks consider that a good thing, others not.

There was a LOT of stuff omitted from both sides in that show. They could have thrown in things like Bush's rather violent drunken outbursts, mentioned Laura's manslaughter accident, ties to haliburton, ties to Florida, the voting fiasco, etc. But I think they kept focus very tight on there methods of public service...as they should have.

Did they interview any Iraqis or soldiers over there on the ground to show boths sides? I hear most of the troops over there support Bush and are constantly being thanked by Iraqis and asked not to leave too soon. Was that reported? No.

I hear lots of things too, Indi. ;o)

It sounds like you found the show biased towards Kerry because it wasn't overtly biased towards bush. Ie, a lack of bias towards Mr. Bush MUST mean it's AGAINST him. That's EXACTLY how the Bush team likes it. You're their ideal demographic.

In my experience, people who are consistent in their words and actions are more trustworthy and dependable than those who are not -- even those who I have philosophical differences with.

Or, rather, they *appear* more trustworthy and dependable. I guess my point is that consistency isn't all that relevant. It's like basing a judgement of a person on how they dress. You can say that someone in a suit and tie is much more professional, therefore better for the job than a guy in a T-shirt and shorts. But the clothes really have nothing to do with the actual integrity fo the person.

There was a great editorial cartoon out a month or so ago. It was (parphrasing):

Real World:
Steadfastness of opinion. Doesn't waver no matter what. = stubborn idiot
Considers all angles, changes mind as circumstances change = level headed thinker.

Politics:
Steadfastness of opinion. Doesn't waver no matter what. = integrity
Considers all angles, changes mind as circumstances change = Flip-Flopper

;o)

20 Oct 2004 | monkeyinabox said...

http://www.presidentmatch.com/Guide.jsp2

This seems like a good tool for the undecided.

20 Oct 2004 | Randal Rust said...

I hear most of the troops over there support Bush and are constantly being thanked by Iraqis and asked not to leave too soon.

I'm not surprised by the first part of this sentence, although 'most' is kind of vague, but the second part? Constantly? Do you read the papers?

The statement that most troops support Bush and that the Iraqis want us there is absolutely true.

One of my best friends is in the Army and this is what members of his unit who have returned from Iraq have told him.

And my friend goes over in December.

Or, rather, they *appear* more trustworthy and dependable. I guess my point is that consistency isn't all that relevant. It's like basing a judgement of a person on how they dress.

How a person dresses has nothing to do with their character, Daryl. How a person acts and maintains himself or herself does. If a person acts in a consistent manner, then they are more likely to be trustworthy -- plain and simple.

I'm not trying to tell people who to vote for, or who to trust. It is just my opinion -- through experience -- that someone who is consistent in their words and actions is a better, more trustworthy person in the long run.

If you don't agree, that is fine.

20 Oct 2004 | Randal Rust said...

FYI, if you are undecided and have the Time-Warner Digital Cable package, then you can watch all four debates for free on InDemand.

IMO, this is the best thing you can *watch.* No documentary is as strong as watching Bush and Kerry spar with each other on the issues to find out where they really stand.

20 Oct 2004 | sloan said...

I am one of those in the camp that is not so much pro-Kerry as anti-Bush. No one knows what Kerry would have done as president facing the same decisions as Bush, but we KNOW what Bush chose and what he did. We know Bush ignored warnings about terrorism and stayed on vacation. We know he was told that the intelligence information from Britain was very likely false, yet he used it in his speech anyway to encourage war. We know someone in his administration exposed an undercover CIA agent yet the investigation has been stalled until after the election. We know that the CIA report on 9/11 has been stalled until after the election even though it was completed in June. We know that Bush (Rumsfeld) sent too few troops and was told they were not enough. We know that the troops were sent without proper supplies or equipment because of the rush to war and the plan for a quick strike. We know that the only building protected during the rioting was the oil ministry. We know that abuse happened in Abu Gharib prison and that it still continues in Cuba. We know that Halliburton continues to get paid even though they are under investigation, which goes against policy. We know that Bush has torn down many environmental standards and laws and made it easier on polluters.

These are the things we KNOW. And yet no one has accepted responsibilty for anything. I worked in WTC Tower 2 and I have no doubt in my mind that the Bush administration has been a disaster for homeland security and has increased the threat to America. Our forces are spread too thin because of his uni-latteral approach and so OBL is still free and over half of Afghanistan is under warlord rule. We have no substantial allies any more. He wants to privatize social security (so we can have another Enron?), use more tax dollars to support religious programs and continue deficeit spending. Is he steadfast in his beliefs? Yes. Will he continue putting our forces at risk? Yes.

We must, of course, prevail with the Iraqi people in ousting militant groups, but this is not something the Bush administration can accomplish. Why? First, they are neo-cons that truly believe might makes right and that overthrowing a government and saying, hey, you're free would equal democracy and peace. This is evident by their shock of looting and resistance. Watch a few clips of Rumsfeld speaking and you'll be sick. They have no understanding, nor desire to understand, the complex political and cultural makeup of the region (Bush didn't even know there was more than one group of Muslims in the country). Second, their unilateral approach also applies to how reconstruction contracts were given and so no one is willing to send troops for the sake of being good samaritans. This administration will not revoke the contracts given or give appropriate incentives to encourage cooperation from other nations.

Okay... this is enough I think. My first post stayed on topic at least... I just cannot read about how Bush is "trustworthy" when he has been anything but. Tell us who betrayed the CIA agent, then maybe we can talk about him being trustworthy.

20 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

One of my best friends is in the Army and this is what members of his unit who have returned from Iraq have told him.

Do you get all of your news for single sources, Indi?

I believe your best friend. I also believe the soldiers that are reporting that it is a gigantic quagmire.

that someone who is consistent in their words and actions is a better, more trustworthy person in the long run.

Consistency isn't really a factor one way or the other. You can consistently lie to me or consistently tell me the truth. Either way you 'appear' trustworthy, but there's no direct connection to actually being trustworthy.

IMO, this is the best thing you can *watch.* No documentary is as strong as watching Bush and Kerry spar with each other on the issues to find out where they really stand.

They weren't debates. It was an overly scripted play full of fluff rhetoric, oversimplified issues, non issues, and insinuations (on both sides). They were rather sad. I'd say the worst thing you could do is base your decision solely these debates. There was a piece in the paper on the language level of the debates. Apparently Bush uses 6th grade level language, Kerry 7th grade. Nixon/JFK used 10th grade language and lincoln, 12th grade. *sigh*. Sadly, appealing to the 6th-grade level comprehension seems to be what wins elections these days. ;o)

20 Oct 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Let's not forget that it's "cool" to be anti-Bush.

It is, and you know it. Heck, it's almost always cool to be against the President. Kind of like the most popular person in an NFL city is the backup quarterback ... it's an American thing.

20 Oct 2004 | Randal Rust said...

I am one of those in the camp that is not so much pro-Kerry as anti-Bush. No one knows what Kerry would have done as president facing the same decisions as Bush, but we KNOW what Bush chose and what he did.

These are the things we KNOW.

If you really want to help someone make a decision, then back it up with facts, not your opinion. Without references, everything you said is nothing more than opinion.

You provide a well-written, well-thought-out argument, but it doesn't hold any water if you don't back it up.

20 Oct 2004 | Randal Rust said...

Consistency isn't really a factor one way or the other. You can consistently lie to me or consistently tell me the truth. Either way you 'appear' trustworthy, but there's no direct connection to actually being trustworthy.

Perhaps I need to clarify. IMO, when a person does what he or she says they are going to do, it is consistent behavior. If a person wavers, changes positions, says one thing and then does another (lying), it is inconsistent behavior.

I'm saying these things from my experience and my point of view. If you don't agree, fine, but don't tell me I'm wrong. Tell me you don't agree with me.

Quite frankly, I'm suprised that you keep coming at me on this, Daryl. It's just my opinion, I'm not saying that it's what everyone should believe.

20 Oct 2004 | Eamon said...

Don, you always come up with the craziest metaphors. Who in his right mind is rooting for Rohan Davey, JT O'Sullivan, or Ty Detmer? And for crying out loud, have you picked a drink, yet?

20 Oct 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Eamon, I'm such an indecisive kind of guy, I had both rum and wine last night. Sheesh.

Kind of like the guy who's too busy cutting down trees to sharpen his axe.

:-)

20 Oct 2004 | Todd Warfel said...

In this day and age of information overload, to not even go out and visit his website to see where he stands on the issues is downright infuriating.

That's just it - it's nearly impossible to see exactly where they stand on the issues that are important to me: national security, the economy, education, health care, and the environment. There's nothing that is a clear straight shooting list.

As for the two main candidates, well, one has raised GDP by 8% and created 1.9 million jobs (jobs lost under the administration aren't because of the current administration - big difference), the other has done nothing for the economy except vote to raise taxes. And as history will show, deficits aren't actually bad for the economy - like it or not.

I'm not in the wealthiest 2%, but I still got money back - my money back.

One has put into place No Child Left Behind - great program, but a bit underfunded. I've actually done some work on the proejct and it's created a bit of innovation in the school systems - w/o the funds, they're finding new ways to become certified. I'd love to see less money going to Mars and more to education. But either way, he's the first President to ever do anything for education. The other candidate - no record of anything that I can find.

National security - one actually created Homeland Security, and took out an evil dictator and 70% if the Bin Laden crew. The other one can't make up his mind if he's for or against (who cares about what happened 30 yrs ago w/Nam - look at their current record). But I know one thing, if the other guy gets into office, we're going to be a heck of a lot less secure than we are now - just look at his record in the Senate. It speaks for itself. Oh and as for getting France to join us on Iraq - hello? What planet is he living on?

On the other issues, health care, environment, etc. well, it's a bit of a wash - neither candidate is doing stellar there. One candidate is doing mediocre, while the other has a rich wife who's dead husband was big into saving the environment, but with the yacht, private jet, SUVs, and half a dozen properties you can't really say they're "living the environmentally friendly lifestyle." And healhcare - 83% of Americans have health care. Kerry's plan would take it to 90% with a cost of 1.7 Trillion dollars. And where is that money going to come from?

So, looking at the issues that are important to me, it's not too difficult to make up my mind. But then again, we all have different priorities.

20 Oct 2004 | Joe said...

This is what irks me. This constant 'liberal media' perception that doesn't exist. You've been duped into thinking that.

The data shows that, in fact, the members of the media (at least the mainstream media) are liberal. For example, New York Times reporter John Tierney wrote on August 1, 2004:

"But do journalists really want John Kerry to defeat George W. Bush? It depends where they work and how you ask the question, at least according to the unscientific survey we conducted last weekend during a press party at the convention. We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington.

"When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic."

Admittedly, this is anecdotal evidence. And, of course, a strong Democratic-leaning amongst Washington reporters does not necessarily mean the reporting is biased. However, I personally believe there's no way it could not bias the reporting, however slightly. And in a political climate so closely balanced, a "slight" bias could tip the balance.

P.S. The original NY Times article is available online; however, you have to pay to access the archives.

20 Oct 2004 | sloan said...

Randal, let me know which known facts you want links to and I will post them. You kind of hit on a tricky point of politics these days though. A fact is a fact whether you provide a link or not, but with how our media reacts these days a lie or mischaracterization can become to be believed as fact. A distortion can be printed in one newspaper, then all of the sudden others copy the story and next thing you know its a "fact" because you can provide links to it. The Drudge Report is a great example of this. Al Gore never said "I invented the internet" yet many people believe he did. The best we can do is try and find more than one source to confirm the story and hope that this is good enough. So on top of everything else, I am worried about media consolidation and freedom of the airwaves and opinion to go with unbiased facts. All of the commentary has made this the most fascinating election ever for me.

20 Oct 2004 | Kevin said...

I understand this post was for the undecided, but it is becoming painfully obvious, that debating politics (just like debating religion) while entertaining, is usually pointless. Typically individuals passionate about such topics, the decided usually already hold immovable positions.

For everyone else, the undecided, perhaps reading the rants of the decided are worthy in that they gain one new tidbit if data/rhetoric that pushes them over the edge, politically speaking.

I hope this is the case.

20 Oct 2004 | Paperhead said...

"How the f*** do you dress yourself in the morning?!" [via MeFi]

20 Oct 2004 | Phil said...

Is Todd Warfel an alias for Michael Savage?

How much money did you get back in the tax cut? I know I got enough to pay one fifth of ONE month's mortgage. In the grand scheme of things $300 doesn't mean a lot to me, but knowing the incredibly bad long term effect of the cuts on my country does.

Your other points are too ridiculous to even argue. This is priceless, "he's the first President to ever do anything for education".

20 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

IMO, when a person does what he or she says they are going to do, it is consistent behavior.

Right. Consitency is consistency. I was just saying that's not a directly correlation to trustworthiness. In your cases, it may correlate. But it's not universal. That's all.

Now, to balance some spin... ;o)

(Well, I was going to responsd to Todd, but the more I read the post the more I realised the futility of it.)

20 Oct 2004 | sloan said...

Todd, there is always more than one way to look at numbers:

Quoting GDP numbers is nice. Something to keep in mind though is that the deficit is now at an all time high when compared as a percentage of the GDP. So overall, the GDP number is nice, but in itself, not a great indicator of how the economy is doing. I think it is doing better, but I think giving a tax cut during war is irresponsible and the fact that we are racking up more debt because of it (a large portion to Chinese banks) makes it seem that much worse.

Bush may have inherited the wave to recession, but it did not start until March of 2001. So technically, the jobs were lost on his watch. The two sides can fight over that one all they want, I could care less. What disturbs me is that they have not met even the low number of creation of jobs that they themselves predicted and are not even keeping up with population growth. Unemployment numbers fluctuate and the counting of the unemployed (and the impoverished) has always been undercounted and is one of the real scams that this nation has let continue for over 2 decades.

Claiming you got your money back? Does that mean you are anti all taxes? Or that $300 was exactly what you deserved? We pay taxes for a ton of benefits. This administration has actually increased spending and created more pork funding than ever before. Tax breaks take longer to affect middle and upper class, but if you are lower class and depend on services for help, you would understand much more clearly how the tax breaks affect people that depend on services that have been cut.

No Child Left Behind. I was a teacher in Florida and you should know that to underfund this act they killed off teacher grants and training across the board. The focus on accountability does not address the problems with schools in the first place. The penalties are in place but the funding to prevent penalties is not. The standards for teaching credentials alone, while incredibly important, does not have money and therefore by 2005 a huge number of schools will be violating this standard and be penalized. The idea of national standards and teaching proficiency are great. This act is not and was not developed with input from educators as a whole.

National Security. Bush received a briefing titled Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States. He stayed on vacation at his ranch. The leader of his terrorism task force, Cheney, never had a meeting about the subject. Bush had Rumsfeld start investigating plans for a war with Iraq in March though. He opposed the Department of Homeland Security (03/19/02), resisted any outside investigation of the intelligence failure (01/29/04), has repressed the internal CIA report on the intelligence failure, and opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission (05/23/02). How is he good for national security?

20 Oct 2004 | Andy said...

The statement that most troops support Bush and that the Iraqis want us there is absolutely true.

One of my best friends is in the Army and this is what members of his unit who have returned from Iraq have told him.

Oh, well, I'm convinced then. If your best friend says so, then it must be true.

***
How did you perceive the coalition forces when they first arrived, compared to six months later?

First arrived/six months later:

Occupying force: 45.9 percent/66.6 percent.

Liberating force: 42 percent/14.8 percent

Peacekeepers: 4.6 percent/10 percent

Over the past three months, would you say the conditions for peace and stability in Iraq have improved, worsened, or stayed the same?

Improved: 23 percent

Worsened: 46 percent

Remained the same: 18.1 percent

Do you support or oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq?

Support: 33 percent

Oppose: 50 percent

Source: Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies. The poll of 1,620 Iraqis was conducted in seven cities from Sept. 28 to Oct. 10. of 2003 The margin of error is 3 percent.
***

20 Oct 2004 | Realish said...

Let's not forget that it's "cool" to be anti-Bush.

This is an utterly fucking insipid piece of projection from an obviously insecure person.

Being anti-Bush may be many things, but first and foremost it is pragmatic. If someone is destroying your strategic security position in the world and driving your country into bankruptcy, you work to stop it. Period.

20 Oct 2004 | indi said...

Darrel - that wasn't me with the friend in the military that was Randal Rust. But I have heard many call-ins from parents, returned soldiers, Iraqis with families over there who have supported this point. One theme I hear repeated is soldiers over there who know they are doing a good job and then when they return are inundated with ovrwhelmingly negative reports. So, no, not a single source, but still technically hearsay.

BTW Sloan, a president on vacation isn't really on vacation the way you and I might be. He is always on the job, only the locale and probably the frequency of meetings changes. So that's really a cheap shot.

20 Oct 2004 | indi said...

OK Andy, point taken. Do you have a link to or numbers from a more recent poll? The one you listed is a year old.

20 Oct 2004 | sloan said...

Cheap shot? I would say he was on an actual vacation as he did absolutely nothing upon receiving the information. That PDB along with the warnings received during the G8 summit that year that terrorists would use airplanes as weapons, in my opinion, should have at least warranted a meeting of the terrorism task force. But that never happened. While yes, it is technically feasible to communicate apropriately from Texas this is a president that has spent more time on vacation (or at his ranch) than any other known president. Would anyone have been able to prevent 9/11? Probably not. But with that kind of information simply alerting airports might have done some good. But second guessing is not the point, the point is that his administration was disinterested and still, in my opinion, is not interested in combating terrorism but rather establishing an even stronger presence in the middle east.

21 Oct 2004 | Todd Warfel said...

Sloan,

Bush may have inherited the wave to recession, but it did not start until March of 2001.

Actually, the job loss, economic decline, and recession began during the last six months of the Clinton adminstration - Around July of 2000. That's before Bush was even elected.

Does that mean you are anti all taxes?

No. I'd rather have a flat tax across the board with the exception of those earning under 20k - no tax for those under 20k. Or something similar to that. Additionally, I'd be interested in having more of a say in where my money goes. Not all of it, but say a reasonable percentage - perhaps 10-20 percent. I'd like to see them revise the system providing me with a list of a couple hundred programs and allow me to choose how to divide 10-20 percent of what they take across those programs - or something similar.

$300 is $300 more than I had before. I'd rather get $300 back then get taxed any more than I am now. Taxes in MA, NY (my two most recent places of residence) and CA are high enough as it is. The last thing I want is bigger government and them taking more of my money than they already have.

The focus on accountability does not address the problems with schools in the first place. The penalties are in place but the funding to prevent penalties is not

It's a start. And as I said before, I'd like to see it funded more. It's not without it's problems - is any legislature? But it's still more than any other president has done. I do think it needs to be refined, however.

Bush received a briefing titled Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States. He stayed on vacation at his ranch.

Where he was in continual contact with his administration and advisors. It was not a "vacation" as Michael Moore or the media would like us to believe. He was on his ranch in Texas, but he was working nearly the entire time.

21 Oct 2004 | Chris Vincent said...

Let's not forget that it's "cool" to be anti-Bush.

It is, and you know it. Heck, it's almost always cool to be against the President. Kind of like the most popular person in an NFL city is the backup quarterback ... it's an American thing.

...maybe where you're from, it's "cool" to be anti-Bush. But when I dare leave my house, which is situated just outside Wichita, Kansas, wearing a Kerry t-shirt (as I did today), I'm immediately subject to insults and even threats of physical violence until the moment I get home.

21 Oct 2004 | sloan said...

Let's put facts to the discussion:
http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/economy/recession/
So the official word on when the recession occurred is now clear. Do I think it was Bush's fault? Of course not. But I think it again illustrates the ability of people to take facts and use them as they see fit. Do a little more searching and you'll find:
http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/economy/bush_cheney/
Which in this case, shows the 2 negative succesive quarters under Bush's administration. You can see a general trend downward though over the previous year, but again, this is simply a measure of GDP. Any way you cut it though, I do not think he has done a good job of encouraging job growth or reducing unemployment.

I am against a flat rate tax cut for the simple reason that at higher income levels a lower percentage of your income is necessary for living expenses. A graduated tax rate is "fairer" in that respect. Also, when you reach a certain level of wealth there are many more options for increasing that wealth than at lower income levels. As for deciding where and how your money is spent, that is what voting is for. Giving individuals the power to direct funds would be a disaster. There is a reason why we live in a democratic republic and not a pure democracy.

Education always gets the shaft and it is not because past presidents did not try to do more for the educational system. We all know that is not how politics works. What I would prefer is an act that actually was based information from teachers. This act was built by bureaucrats and formed based on a business mentality. That has never worked for education and never will. Nothing in the bill is about better education, but about "accountability". The focus points to the problem right off the bat. Florida was a bit of test bed for these policies and they have not worked. Rewards for good test scores are easily cut or held in reserve in bad times. Teachers still are not guaranteed pay increases (in my county teachers had not received even a cost of living increase in 7 years). Private schools that accepted ANY voucher student had to accept ANY voucher student. So very few private schools accepted any because they like to control their admissions. Those that did, had problems relating to students from greatly varying backgrounds than their normal student body. In short, the act encourages the closures of poorly performing public schools and causes an over population in the public schools that do well. This, in turn, causes the schools that do well to be overwhelmed. It has really caused problems. Like Bush a lot of the time, I think the intent is there, but execution is faulty and a major reason is lack of understanding and an unwillingness to explore it fully to understand the problems.

Lastly, I am sure Bush was in constant contact with his administration. I am not arguing that. I am arguing he and his administration was out to lunch and did not act on the information they had. They admit they did nothing. Will the CIA's 9/11 report confirm or contradict me? Who knows, the thing has been in final draft form since June but not released even though the House Intelligence Committee has asked for it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/yahoo/la-na-cia20oct20,1,2601757.story

21 Oct 2004 | MRKinLA said...

That so many ostensibly literate people here are as yet undecided on the issue of how to vote is dispiriting. I join the ranks of those who can only shake their heads in disbelief at such blithe disregard for our democracy. What exactly are you people waiting for? The candidates to come sit with you in your living room and answer your most personal questions directly? The media to reduce the issues that you care about most to 7-second soundbites? Your favorite blogger to dissect the issues in such a graphically appealing and clever way that it persuades you one way or the other?

If you don't have an opinion on everything that's happened over the course of the last four years, it begs the question, what do you care about? Bush was installed into the role of president by the Supreme Court, lacking the mandate of the popular vote; it could have reasonably been expected that the tentative nature of these circumstances would have ensured he stay true to his promises of reaching across party lines to unite the country while eschewing nation-building.

Then, 9/11. At a time of great tragedy, the president had the sympathy of the world and the support of a nation; the former, he swiftly squandored, while the latter, he quickly betrayed, capitalizing on our uncritical, fearful, and unquestioning support to embark on a mission in Iraq that had nothing to do with terrorism.

It did, however, have everything to do with satisfying the neo-cons in his administration who had felt betrayed by his father's lack of decisive action after the first Gulf War. They would not make the mistake a second time, even if it meant cloacking the mission in misinformation and deceit. The contention Saddam Hussein had WMD was incorrect, but they knew that before they went in after him. Arguing that the world and specifically Iraq is a better place without a madman in charge is akin to saying a drunk who veers into the car of a terminally ill patient has somehow committed a lesser crime. Explaining away a deplorable action -- in this case, deceiving the American people to ensure we became engaged in a conflict that will cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars -- does not lessen it.

The obsessively-secret meetings. The rollback of environmental laws that have pumped thousands of tons of nitrogen oxides, sulfar dioxides, and mercury into the air we breathe. Abu Ghraib. Tax cuts for the wealthy, contributing to the ever-widening gap between obscenely rich and despicably poor. 45 million without health insurance. More jobs lost than in any presidency in modern history. Orwellian names for bills like "No Child Left Behind" and "Clean Skies Initiative." This is the man you would have appoint as many as four new Supreme Court judges? Privatize Social Security? The same man who did not know it's Switzerland that's neutral, not Sweden?

We have no idea how disastrous Bush's decision to cast America as the Occupier of Iraq will be for us in the Muslim world, but most security experts agree, Bush and his war have been for terrorist recruitment what hurricanes are for Red Cross donations. Bush's administration keeps us scared because they know we should be scared; they know there are consequences to what we've done, consequences their inept planning and funding of Homeland Security is unlikely to prevent or ameliorate.

To those who are not voting because neither candidate represents exactly what they're looking for in a president, I say this: presidential candidates are not cell phone plans, people. It's the mark of a spoiled, solipsistic, and intellectually indolent culture to believe any sort of political process should be constructed to deliver to all Americans their ideal candidate. Refusing to express an opinion in a democratic society is tantamount to not having one; silence is neither an honorable nor tenable decision. If you don't know enough, learn. If you don't agree, dissent. If you don't care, get the hell outta the way and shut your trap if you don't like how it all nets out.

21 Oct 2004 | indi said...

OK, I'm undecided now. Should I laugh or should I cry?

21 Oct 2004 | Randal Rust said...

Bush was installed into the role of president by the Supreme Court, lacking the mandate of the popular vote;

It is true that Bush did not have the popular vote, but he won in the Electoral College, which is how we elect our President.
The Supreme Court did not install him into the role. In the State that won the Presidency for Bush, Florida, he won by exactly 537 votes.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

Arguing that the world and specifically Iraq is a better place without a madman in charge is akin to saying a drunk who veers into the car of a terminally ill patient has somehow committed a lesser crime.

That is a terrible analogy, and one that I take great offense to. Under the reign of Saddam Hussein, people were brutally murdered.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041013-073535-6643r.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2956129.stm
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm

The rollback of environmental laws that have pumped thousands of tons of nitrogen oxides, sulfar dioxides, and mercury into the air we breathe.

Make of these links what you will...

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/environmentpolicy/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2004.asp

Tax cuts for the wealthy, contributing to the ever-widening gap between obscenely rich and despicably poor.

I received tax relief, and I am neither obscenely rich or despicably poor. I also live in Ohio, where State taxes went up.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=106.html

45 million without health insurance. More jobs lost than in any presidency in modern history.

Why is this the President's fault? I will never, ever understand this argument. The economy is cyclical, and employment is directly affected by it.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/glance.htm

Orwellian names for bills like "No Child Left Behind" and "Clean Skies Initiative."

At least the plans have names. Name one plan, by name, that John Kerry has proposed.

but most security experts agree, Bush and his war have been for terrorist recruitment what hurricanes are for Red Cross donations. Bush's administration keeps us scared because they know we should be scared; they know there are consequences to what we've done, consequences their inept planning and funding of Homeland Security is unlikely to prevent or ameliorate.

Prove it.

They would not make the mistake a second time, even if it meant cloacking the mission in misinformation and deceit.

Read the following transcript and listen to the MP3 file. This is a report from ABC News broadcast in 1999 that links Bin Laden to Iraq.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229608/posts

People should make decisions on information, not hearsay; not what Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or any other talking head says; or even what I say. But if you are going to try to sway people into making a decision, at least help them make an informed decision by backing up what you say with facts.

21 Oct 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Hey, John Kerry *is* cool. He rides a Harley, windsurfs, plays guitar.

Seriously, he's much cooler than Bush. Heck, for that matter, Democrats are much more hip than uptight Republicans.

Just like it's cool to not like Corvettes.

If you really, *really* think Bush is *that* bad, then vote. But the fact remains, many MANY of the Bush haters won't vote. Young people -- as a group -- don't. But they sure like to hang with the anti-Bush crowd and rant ... it's cool, dude. Gnarly.

Me? I'm way hip; I vote Libertarian.

Best thing about voting for a candidate you know can't win? You get to be *really* cool and complain for the next four years, while all the time acting and sounding so "holier-than-thou" because "Well, I voted Libertarian!"

Yeah, I love that.

21 Oct 2004 | Don Schenck said...

P.S. My idea is that if I piss off enough of you diaper dandies, perhaps you'll get off your collective, idealistic asses and actually vote for a change.

21 Oct 2004 | Paperhead said...

OK, having pointed to a funny, I am going to step over the line on this one. I think this is one of those very small stories that speaks volumes.

At a Bush rally in Oregon, three women schoolteachers were removed from the rally for wearing t-shirts that read:

"Protect our civil liberties"

They were escorted from the rally by the state police, at the behest of a rally volunteer who called the t-shirts "obscene".

21 Oct 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Whoa! That's really not funny.

21 Oct 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Paperhead -- what's REALLY bad is that the major media outlets are not running with that story. If THAT isn't important ... what is? What could possibly be more important?

Anger doesn't describe my feelings. "Fightin' mad" is a TAME way of saying how I feel.

21 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

Prove it.

You can't. That's the point. Take Putin's endorsement of Bush. It's basically: if you don't elect bush, the terrorists won and they will find it easier to recruit new members. Of course, if we do elect Bush, the 'war' will continue as usual, and the continual presense in the middle east will make it easer to recruit new members.

So, as long as we keep talking about terrorism, Bush is happy. He wins either way.

21 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

Paperhead, got a link to that story?

21 Oct 2004 | Andy said...

1. Sloan rocks.

2. Art Spiegelman wore a shirt that said "Pray for a secular democracy" to the Republican National Convention. He was asked to step outside by a security guard who read the shirt, thought about it for a minute, then let him back in.

21 Oct 2004 | R. Marie Cox said...

Paperhead - that story is a thinly veiled endorsement of Kerry for President. It didn't even mention that the troops support Bush or that the Bush has given us each $300 -- I don't understand how you can trust anything that doesn't bring those points up at all times, even when inappropriate. /snark

(It is interesting how this sort of embodies, in perhaps a more personal way, the broad-reaching effects of a preemptive policy: "Tracey Schmitt, spokeswoman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, stated in an e-mail: 'Nobody on staff can remember the incident or understand why they would have been removed unless there was reason to believe that they were disruptive or were planning to be disruptive.'" -- We're talking about t-shirts!)

But back on topic... To support Randal's overall message -- and possibly invalidate part of my own snark above; sound bites really don't amount to much without supporting evidence. Each one was specifically crafted to trigger some emotional response that can sway your opinion in a matter of seconds -- long term consequences be damned! -- and often requires disciplined non-partisan fact checking.

Don't simply challenge the candidate's marketing; challenge yourself while being mindful to not let anyone else dictate your priorities -- find the real reason you can't decide and do some of your own research about each candidate to see where they stand on those issues that really matter to you.

Then all you have to do is VOTE!

21 Oct 2004 | Randal Rust said...

Prove it.

You can't. That's the point.

Exactly. There are a lot of things being said in this forum that no one can prove unless they were actually in the room with the President, his advisors, generals and cabinet members. So what we've had are people making arguments based on conjecture, not facts.

Over lunch, I went to Barnes & Noble and purchased two books:

The 9/11 Commission Report
A Call To Service by John Kerry

I encourage anyone to pick up Kerry's book. I have read two pages, specifically pages 50 and 51, and am quite suprised at what he says.

Here is one direct quote. It is not taken out of context.

'There's one thing you cannot take away from President Bush: He did
establish beyond a shadow of a doubt the credibility of U.S. threats
to use military force against our enemies.'

21 Oct 2004 | indi said...

Thank you Marie, very well stated.

21 Oct 2004 | sloan said...

Some troops support Bush, some don't. Some feel they are doing great work, some have nightmares and commit suicide because they accidently killed civilians. A lot of it has to do with what mission they have. If you are working on civil works projects, I am sure you see the good that we are doing over there and feel that Bush is doing a great thing. If you are on a mission to protect a caravan with unarmored vehicles that breakdown and get ambushed every day... your view is going to be much different. War is hell and I would think that as a ground troop that you would have to have faith in your leader and your mission in order not to go crazy. I don't remember there being any refusals by troops not to do a mission in Kosovo or the first war. I think that shows the very disparate experiences that troops are having over there. There is no "troops support" or "troops don't support".

The question becomes who you think will do a better job of rebuilding Iraq. So far, I think this administrations uni-lateral approach has been a disaster because there is no Arab/Middle Eastern division of troops involved and the whole region looks upon the US as wanting to continue to build permanent bases in Iraq. The administrations influence on the running of the war has made it worse than it needed to be. They, mainly Rumsfeld, disregarded any opinion that conflicted with their goal of a small force acting quickly and leaving quickly.

This administration's mindset is what scares me. The level of secretiveness is amazing. This president gave the least number of press conferences. People are held in prison without being charged. The Patriot Act means the FBI can find out what I am reading or tap a phone without ANY oversight by a judge. The CIA 9/11 report is being repressed. The CIA agent being exposed. Voter registration cards being torn up. People having to sign Loyalty Oaths in order to go to ralleys. That does not sound like freedom or democracy. The mentality, with us or you're evil mentality is not a Republican ideal. It is not part of a democracy's ideal. The lack of tolerance, the anit-gay rhetoric, calling the war a crusade... It is more than the fact I do not like them, I think they are dangerous.

21 Oct 2004 | Todd Warfel said...

Sloan,

I agree with many of your points, however, there are a few I'd like to weigh in on:

As for deciding where and how your money is spent, that is what voting is for. Giving individuals the power to direct funds would be a disaster.

I'd agree that giving individuals the power to direct "all of their funds" would be a disaster, for many reasons - mostly because we can't possibly be informed enough spread our funds around fairly to the endless programs that exist. However, while in theory our voting is deciding where our money goes, in reality that's just not the case.

If I agreed with the candidates on most if not all of their major points than I'd agree with you. However, I find it hard to believe that the majority of Americans will agree with Bush or Kerry, or any other candidate 100% of the time - unless of course you're blinding voting R or D, respectively.

What I'm suggesting is that we're allowed to self-direct some reasonable portion of the taxes that get levied against us. That might be 10-20% of the 20-50% they take (depending on your tax bracket). I appreciate our government, but I'd like to have more say in where my money goes. It's not an unreasonable request.

Nothing in the bill is about better education, but about "accountability" [...] Florida was a bit of test bed for these policies and they have not worked.

We did six months of research on NCLB in NY, CA, and NC in 2003-2004. Accountability is part of the problem. There's a great deal of research showing that teachers are the most effective during their first five years, then they plateau over the next 10-15, and drop significantly during the last 5 years on the average.

The root of the problem is education. They're attmepting to address the issue through creating teachers that have significant impact on students - a great solution. Many of the measurements that NCLB calls for is intended to measure a teachers impact on students over time. It's not rocket science.

However, I agree that their are execution problems. Not all the school systems have the technology capabilities needed to innovate and meet the requirements and that's a problem. Many of the school systems, however, are looking at the requirements and finding ways to satisfy them through non-traditional methods. This is something that all the school systems could do, but aren't. I would like to see them extend the deadline out another four years to give schools in need a better chance to comply.

In short, the act encourages the closures of poorly performing public schools and causes an over population in the public schools that do well. This, in turn, causes the schools that do well to be overwhelmed.

Two ways to look at it. That's one. The other is that it's raising the stakes and trying to get schools in urban areas like LA, Chicago, and NY city to bring their teaching up to an acceptable level and better educate the students.

Lastly, I'd agree that their needs to be more input from teachers. When we did our research, one of the things we tried to do was get input from administrators, teachers, and parents of students in those communities.

As with any legislation, I think once it's put in place, it should be measured over a period of time, say 5-10 years, and then revisited and adjusted as needed.

And incidentally, Bush is the first President to put anything like this into place that has as a direct goal to increase our education system. So, by that respect, he has done more directly for education than any previous President we've had.

21 Oct 2004 | Randal Rust said...

...there is no Arab/Middle Eastern division of troops involved ...

The assertion that Arab/Middle Eastern troops are not aiding the cause is absolutely false. Unless, of course, Iraqis are not Arabs, or are not from the Middle East.

Do a Google search on 'Iraqi Troops.' This is just one of the results that will turn up.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/07/iraq.main/

21 Oct 2004 | sloan said...

Todd,

Again, I understand the intent of the act, and am aware of the plateau problem. But I think they misunderstand WHY it happens. But first, the problem with inner city schools. The intent is to help, but the reality is that lower income areas have much lower parent participation and greater difficulty at attracting qualified teachers. Teach for America is a great program aimed at overcoming this problem but the fact is, when you are in a school that does not have money for books, no money for extra tutoring, no money to entice educated teachers... How will that work? It doesn't. The schools are falling apart and students feel that no one cares. The idea that a school that is not doing well can be closed or taken over by a private company is horrifying to me. This act is simply the wrong kind of legislation for inner city school problems.

There are no guarantees of teacher pay or raises based on actual teaching. There is no accountability for parents. All of the accountabilty, pressure, is on teachers alone to get test scores. Underfunding the program simply means that the penalties are still in place but with less than needed "fixing" money. We can penalize you at the same rate without meeting our obligations of funding it... that's simply wrong. If they want accountabilty, fine, have tests at major milestones. As it is, they are focused on testing way too often for moving to the next grade. What many educators would like to see is money for testing every year that shows what students need to work on AND money for the help they need. A standard to say, move from elementary school to middle school, is a great idea, but there is no money to help those individual children with their individual problems at this time.

Bush did get this passed... amazing what you can do when you promote a mostly non-partisan bill with control of congress eh? I am glad something got done.

Randall, were those links supposed to prove Bush has a good environmental record? He cut funding to the super-fund. He lowered the standard for clean water. Your first link even points out that he made it easier for companies to pollute. He has increased logging in our national forests claiming it is to prevent forest fires. Strip mining is now easier. In July 2003, the Bush administration announced that the EPA will not voluntarily issue any more health standards for contaminants in drinking water.

"[If elected], Governor Bush will work toestablish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Source: Bush Environmental Plan]

"I do not believe that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide." - President Bush, 3/13/03
----------------
'Expanding the aims of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, I will ask Congress to provide $100 million to support the exchange of debt relief for the protection of tropical forests."

"In the new federal budget, Bush has arranged for just $13 million for the program. Even that sum isn't new funding; instead, it is diverted from the Agency for International Development." - Boston Globe, 4/10/01

21 Oct 2004 | sloan said...

Randal, you missed the point on the troops issue. It would have relieved fears and provided more legitimacy to the occupational forces if, while Iraqi troops are being trained, there were people in charge of more security who were their neighbors. I was referring to occupation forces, not the Iraqi's themselves.

21 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

The problem with NCLB is that it merely eccourages schools to push for better testing results. It makes the assumption that better testing results = better education. That's not necessarily true.

I'm torn on the faith-based initiatives. I despise the mix of religion, but the initiatives are fairly non-religious. My wife is actually employed via one of these grants. And they do seem to be going to good causes. My wife is working on a tutoring program for inner city children (where we live).

What bugs me is I can't understand why the money has to go through this chain? Faith-based iniatives -> grant writing -> deciding who gets what -> sending out funds -> affecting the child.

Why not give the funding for the school to do this in the first place? It seems to be a ploy at spending less for the results in the hoping of getting more volunteer labor involved, combined with Bush being able to play the Jesus card more. I'm suspicious...

21 Oct 2004 | Andy said...

Why would I care if the troops support the president? That should influence my vote?

21 Oct 2004 | MRKinLA said...

Randal,

You're obviously a well-informed individual, which is part of what's so incredibly mystifying as to your seeming preference for Bush -- I say seeming, because I don't know. If so, we obviously disagree.

On the president's lack of a popular mandate: I'm aware we chose our president based on the Electoral College. I'm also aware the Supreme Court had to decide how to award Florida's Electoral College votes. Sliding into office on the grease of conservative Supreme Court judges and not a consensus of American opinion suggested, at least, that Bush would not pursue a devisive, radically right agenda. It's context as opposed to content. It needs to be considered by anyone judging the character of someone destined to affect world events, as does this president's apparent disgust with disagreement and dissent -- which, last time I checked, were fairly valued in a democratic society. This is the root of George Soros's problem with Bush.

My analogy comparing drunken drivers to actions in Iraq was inappropriate, and I apologize -- to anyone whose friends or relatives have ever been hurt by a drunken driver. Otherwise, it's valid, your indignation notwithstanding. By your logic, why are we not currently engaged in aggressive military operations in the Sudan, where approximately 2 million have died in 20 years of fighting and allegations of ethnic cleansing have propelled even a member of Bush's own administration -- Powell -- to admit "genocide" has been committed? The commitment of American forces, lives, and dollars was not based on the assertion that we needed to free the people of Iraq from a murderous tyrant -- it was that Iraq presented a clear and present danger to America through its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its affiliation and support of terrorist organizations determined to kill Americans. And that you would offer a six-year-old news report as conclusive evidence that Iraq and OBL were linked at the time we made our decision to act is frightening.

Re: your tax cut. I did not assert that only the rich received tax cuts. But neither does your personal experience invalidate the fact that most of the enormous tax cuts went to the wealthy, where cuts are needed the least. This contributes to an ever-widening income gap, and that's a fact, so check it. To argue that you yourself received money somehow relieves the conditions at more extreme ends of the spectrum? Weak.

The assertion that something must be proved to be true is specious, particularly as it relates to your challenge to "prove" we are less safe, that the Bush administration's lack of preparedness and intelligence could potentially have dire consequences for innocent Americans. How exactly would you propose I prove such a scenario? And, if you feel you have adequate access to information to disprove this notion, please provide.

Lastly, it's neither my intent nor responsibility to provide hyperlinks to information to prove my every point. What passes for proof is often subjective. Numbers will tell any story you want, depending on how long you torture them. Were you satisfied by the proof that Iraq was the threat the Bush administration perceived it to be? If so, how do you reconcile that proof with the reality we encountered after becoming entangled in the region? If can be conclusively proved, however, that well before 9/11, there was a plan to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and much, much more -- it's called the Wolfowitz Doctrine. I suggest anyone who might lend their support to Bush read and understand the doctrines to which his administration, in turn, lends their support. Do you agree with unilateral action? Regime change? Preemptive (sometimes spun as "preventitive") military action against rogue states?

The only solution is to educate oneself to the best of one's ability, take in as much information as one feels one needs, and then to make a decision -- hopefully, an informed one. On this last point, Randal, we ironically agree. The information I've shared is all readily available for anyone who wants to verify or dispute what I've written. My intention is not to persuade people to vote one way or the other -- just to get across to people that there's a lot at stake in this election, and it's worth seeking out sources of unbiased information, such as Marie's suggestion. To shrug one's shoulders and change the mental channel to something less intellectually rigorous makes a mockery of the process. It's an imperfect process for sure -- but it's the best we have.

21 Oct 2004 | Randal Rust said...

Randall, were those links supposed to prove Bush has a good environmental record?

No. They present both sides of the picture. I personally have no opinion on his environmental record, because I consider it a non-issue.

Randal, you missed the point on the troops issue.

No, I didn't. You weren't clear in what you were saying.

It would have relieved fears and provided more legitimacy to the occupational forces if, while Iraqi troops are being trained, there were people in charge of more security who were their neighbors. I was referring to occupation forces, not the Iraqi's themselves.

Kuwait and Qatar are part of the coalition, and fall under military support, but provide no troops. Iraq has roughly 50,000 of its own troops involved. You assume that if Middle Eastern nations supplied troops that it would have relieved fears. Do not assume. Find somewhere where an Iraqi, or an Iranian actually says this. Assuming this as fact is wrong, because you make the assumption based on the Western way of life. Things are different in the Middle East.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/u/u_/u_s_led_coalition_against_iraq.html#Nature%20of%20support

21 Oct 2004 | sloan said...

The orignal plan for the war was that there would be 2 to 3 US divisions, a division led by the UK, a division led by another nation, and a divison led by Arab allies. When the coallition never formed this plan was scratched. Keeping the Iraqi army intact instead of immeadiately disbanning it would have helped security and was the plan presented by the US Army War College. The US lost more face when their plans for the middle east with other G8 countries were leaked:
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/wittes20040510.htm

Kuwait and Qatar, out of all of the middle eastern nations is not a resounding show of support and the entire region is nervous about US aims in both Iraq (oil, permanent bases or not?) and the rest of the region. I simply do not believe Bush when he says we went there first for WMD, then for liberating the Iraqi's from a dictator. There are too many contradicting moves that they've made to trust them on this point.

21 Oct 2004 | Andy said...

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Democrats are accusing the Justice Department of playing politics by trying to delay an inquiry into whether President Bush's New England campaign chief played a role in illegal phone-jamming on Election Day 2002.

Computer-generated calls were made to get-out-the-vote phones run by Democrats and the nonpartisan Manchester firefighters' union. More than 800 hang-up calls tied up phones for about 1 1/2 hours.

Last summer, the former executive director of the state GOP pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge and admitted paying $15,600 to a Virginia telemarketing company that hired another business to make the calls.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-GOP-Phone-Lines.html?oref=login

typical

21 Oct 2004 | Randal Rust said...

You're obviously a well-informed individual, which is part of what's so incredibly mystifying as to your seeming preference for Bush -- I say seeming, because I don't know. If so, we obviously disagree.

All I am doing is trying to be centrist in a forum where there is a chance to educate undecided voters. I am only suggesting that you back up what you say with facts.

The assertion that something must be proved to be true is specious, particularly as it relates to your challenge to "prove" we are less safe, that the Bush administration's lack of preparedness and intelligence could potentially have dire consequences for innocent Americans. How exactly would you propose I prove such a scenario?

By going out and finding information to back up what you say. If I was going to make a statement that we are more safe under the Bush Administration, then I would feel compelled to back it up.

And, if you feel you have adequate access to information to disprove this notion, please provide.

If I've said anything that needs to be proven with facts, please let me know.

You say that I am a well-informed individual, but that my seeming support for the President mystifies you. That I don't understand. You are making a correlation that well-informed people would not support the President. That's a very dangerous statement to make.

My vote is my vote and your vote is yours. Do with it what you will, but the original question was about uninformed voters, and what would sway them one way or the other. I have only tried to provide information, not to try and influence a vote.

If you are an undecided voter, please do yourself (and all of us) the service of making an informed decision.

And with that, I am finished here. It's been fun. Good luck.

21 Oct 2004 | sloan said...

It is Randal's vote and to suggest that intelligent, well-informed people would not vote for Bush is really just silly. If you are mystified, do some research, visit some conservative news sites and blogs. I too hope that more people will go out, get informed, and make their own decision. You may not agree with their decision, but hey, that's life. People have differing values and views.

22 Oct 2004 | kirkaracha said...

Your vote matters. It came down to the votes of 537 people last time, out of millions. Every vote counts (except in Florida).

If you want a smaller government, don't vote for Bush. He's increased the size of the government four years in a row. He also rejeceted a Saudi plan to bring in "an all-Muslim force to protect U.N. election staff in Iraq" because "the force would not
have been under U.S. command." Think Bush is affecting terrorism? According to the State Department, terrorist attacks increased in 2003.

Kerry isn't my dream candidate, and I'd love to see a multiparty system, but I look at it this way: we're on the Titanic, and the captain has pointed the ship at an iceberg. Let's avoid hitting the iceberg, then we can worry about who our dream captain could be.

23 Oct 2004 | indi said...

I ran into the Frontline program again tonight. I watched the last half hour. In the last 10 to 15 minutes all of the clips of Kerry are of campaign speeches critical of the president and the war in Iraq. There are still photos of Bush ... none of his campaign speeches critical of Kerry or talking about the war on terrorism . The show closes with Bob Woodward quoting Bush, showing his resoluteness about Iraq and then some other guy (writer? producer?) saying their presidencies would be very different. Kerry would work hard at bringing the US back together with the world so we can work together. He than says Bush really wants to be a transformational president and to do that you have to be heavily conservative. Then he ends with the line that Bush wants to leave a footprint on the world, a very large footprint (I'm somewhat paraphrasing). The final visual is a profile of Kerry fading into the American flag flapping in the wind.

To be transformational you have to be heavily conservative? What the hell is he talking about? I stand by my opinion that that show was meant to favor Kerry. It's not just that there was a lack of positives about Bush so automatically it was pro Kerry, they really did go out of their way to show Kerry in a better light. I don't know that it was intentional bias, but that was the final result.

So if you're still undecided, go ahead and watch the program, but be skeptical towards the end. Actually, being skeptical is a good general rule to go by whenever politics are involved on both sides.

25 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

" they really did go out of their way to show Kerry in a better light."

To say that makes the erroneous assumption that you HAVE to go out of your way to show Kerry in a better light than Bush.

;o)

"Actually, being skeptical is a good general rule"

Absolutely.

25 Oct 2004 | indi said...

"To say that makes the erroneous assumption that you HAVE to go out of your way to show Kerry in a better light than Bush."

Well, see that's just the thing ... the only thing they could show towards the end was Kerry's campaign speeches and it's pretty clear to at least one or two of us that he will say anything to get elected, even if it contradicts something he said recently .. or even in the same sentence.

But of course they didn't include those bits. :-D

26 Oct 2004 | Phil said...

Certainly Kerry is a politician and is prone to rhetoric, but absolutely will not "say anything to get elected". For instance, he doesn't lie. Most of his "contradictions" are distortions created by the conservatives. If he did lie they'd be all over it, but they got nothing. He doesn't need to lie. Bush's record speaks for itself. Kerry has never once gone outside the lines in quoting Bush's record. That's the reason he has so much support. It's obvious what is going on in this administration and Kerry tells it like it is.

26 Oct 2004 | indi said...

Kerry doesn't lie about Bush's record?

Kerry blamed Bush for higher Medicare premiums ... but in fact the premiums were mandated by a 1997 codification of the medicare law that Kerry voted for.

Kerry claimed that Bush is planning on bringing back the draft yet it was House Democrat Charlie Wrangel who brought a bill before congress to reinstate the draft ... fortunately it was almost unanimously voted down - even Wrangel voted against it

Kerry said "Gen. Shinseki told this country how many troops we'd need [200,000 in Iraq]. The president retired him early for telling the truth." But "in March 2002, Rumsfeld announced that Shinseki's term as chief of staff would end as scheduled in June 2003 without extension -- an unprecedented action that made the general a lame duck. It was after that, not before it, on Feb. 25, 2003, that Shinseki told a Senate committee the U.S. would need "several hundred thousand" soldiers (not precisely 200,000) for Iraq occupation duty."

I read this in a Novak column ... but then maybe he's the liar, not Kerry.

26 Oct 2004 | Phil said...

Have you heard what John Stewart calls Robert Novak? It's not very flattering.

26 Oct 2004 | indi said...

Hey, nice come-back. I like Jon Stewart, but he is an avowed Kerry supporter, so his criticism is supposed to somehow mean something regarding Novak's reporting on Kerry's lies? CBS is obviously rooting for Kerry, so should I discount everything they report on too?

26 Oct 2004 | Phil said...

Absolutely not, but you should be wary of quoting someone who believes Bill Clinton personally murdered people during his administration. Novak will most likely be tried for treason for outing Valerie Plame, a CIA undercover operative, purely for political gain.

I'd truly be interested in proof of Kerry lying, but only from a reputable source.

It's really not as simple as saying CBS is on one side of the issue (even if it were true) and Novak is on the other. If CBS leans left they are 3 inches to the left of center, while Novak is about 400 miles to the right.

27 Oct 2004 | indi said...

"If CBS leans left they are 3 inches to the left of center, while Novak is about 400 miles to the right."

You mean 3 inches to the left of where you are, right? :-D

Well, Novak won't be tried, except maybe for contempt ... it would be whoever leaked him the information. It was a stupid and dangerous move and I hope they get tagged for it. National security is a very serious issue.

27 Oct 2004 | Phil said...

It's not really all that important how far left I, Jon Stewart or CBS lean or how far right Novak leans. It's important who is giving a more accurate report of what is reality and who is spinning, or in some cases lying, to support their cause. Obviously people disagree on this. Once you listen to them, it's really hard to argue that people like Novak, Coulter, Savage, O'Reilly (I could go on forever) are truly honest people arguing a different point of view. Their statement are so extremely shallow and full of distortions it's impossible to say they are just giving another point of view to counter the supposed "liberal media". Whatever you call it, it's dishonest and manipulative. CBS and Jon Stewart can't even be put into the same equation as those people.

27 Oct 2004 | indi said...

That's funny - I get the impression it's the other side spinning like mad. Though to be honest, I might trust someone like Stewart more just because he is on the outside. Did you see his appearance on Crossfire? Brilliant.

28 Oct 2004 | Phil said...

That Crossfire appearance was priceless.

29 Oct 2004 | Greg said...

Okay, this was a thread about undecideds - but since all pretense is gone, I'll weigh in on this election.

I used to believe all the stuff I heard on the news. I was a good 'enlightened' liberal, not voting the party line, but weighing the issues first (and then voting straight 'D'). After many years of dissappointment with Carter (my first vote at 18), Kennedy, Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Harkin, Rostenkowski, etc. I have undergone a tranformation. Please, if you are leaning towards Kerry, you must read "An Open Letter To Democrats" http://www.leanwrite.com/politics/041015openletter.html

29 Oct 2004 | Phil said...

Wow, what a let down. I was excited to read the Lean Write article and learn something but there's nothing there.

The author claims to have voted for Clinton, Gore, etc. Either he is lying or was so profoundly affected by 9/11 that he can no longer think rationally.

The article is filled with the same misconceptions as all the other pro-war drivel. It's nothing new. The premise is that we are at war and Bush is better at fighting wars. The goal of a president is not to fight wars, but to protect America. THIS WAR DOES NOT MAKE US SAFER. IT MAKES US LESS SAFE. This is what the author snidely refers to as "nuance". Yes, Bush took out two dictators. There are MANY more out there and he didn't remove the worst ones. More importantly, he created an environment to spawn more evil and more powerful dictators. There are more terrorists in Iraq now than when Sadaam was in power. Sadaam was a very evil person, but in the post-Sadaam chaos there are al-Qaeda operatives swarming all over the place. As has been proven many times, before the invasion Sadaam had no ties with al Qaeda.

When you have a wasp nest in your backyard, the best course of action is not neccesarily to go get a broomstick and take a swing at it. Oops, I guess that's a nuanced approach. Shame on me for being weak. I should move to France with all the other pussies.

01 Nov 2004 | Sean Warburton said...

I'm in the United Kingdom so unfortunately don't get to vote for your President, although the man who wins may have a massive effect on my future.

For those Americans who are undecided becuase they don't respect either candidate, can I urge you to look deeper than the men at the helm and in fact look at the team that are behind them. Here in the UK, the BBC have been broadcasting a three part documentary series titled the 'Power of Nightmares", it's an excellent piece of journalism that has detailed the rise to power of the neo Conservatives in the USA. President Bush has surrounded himself with these people, men like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. To be frank, the prospect of four more years of these people is very worrying for me.

The program concluded that whereas once, politicians used to tell you how they were going to help you make your dreams come true, Mr Bush and his team have decided that the best way to remain in power is to instill fear into the population and then exploit that fear by telling you that they can protect you from your nightmares.

I urge the people who haven't decide to vote or who have decide they can't be bothered. Please, don't be apathetic and don't waste your vote, make a difference to your country and the rest of the World.

02 Nov 2004 | Kevin said...

Well it is November 2nd. Are there still undecied voters? Probably...

02 Nov 2004 | indi said...

And for all you decideds on either side that are "too busy" to vote ...
MAKE THE DAMN TIME!!!