The US election

quote:

---

I thought that was how Saddam got to be president in the first place.

---

Tom, good point

quote:

---

OK - just as soon as we get through hurricane No. 4!

---

Good luck once again Davie. Unbelievable!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
To prevent it, the US is going to contine to interfere in Iraqi politics and security for years to come.

---

I thought that was how Saddam got to be president in the first place.

---

Spot on, Tom.

Well, I just watched the first debate. Bush seemed confused and nervous, I thought. Kerry seemed very confident, but then I supposed I'm biased.

The spinsters on both sides are now furiously at work trying to tell us all how to think. Gotta give McCain some credit for afterwards refusing to baldly say Bush had done well; seemed almost to admit B. hadn't done well.

I felt that Bush drove his attacks home much more effectively, through mind-numbing repitition ("mixed message"). Kerry didn't leave undecided voters with neatly packaged take-away phrases for describing Bush's inadequacies. He really needs to dumb down 2-3 key statements for people to gobble up.

Bush 1, Kerry 0

I agree Bush sounded jittery but I think everyone's used to that by now.

(all IMO)

Kerry is the more fluid debater– that’s pretty clear. But on substance all he offered was an appeal to ambiguous multilateralism – even at the end when he said Iraq was a threat, but we went about it the wrong way because we didn’t build a larger international coalition. On style, I think he might have picked up some undecideds because I thought he looked and sounded plausibly Presidential.

Bush was fine – and downright solid at point. Nothing spectacular but nothing spectacularly wrong. He’s clearly got the better policies but he missed the continual opportunity to use Kerry’s Senate record on intelligence (nothing said about Kerry’s record here! Ack!!) and defense to characterize his opponent. Perhaps he’s leaving that to surrogates.

I thought Kerry had it on points, but TV pundits and spin doctors will have their way with the post-mortem, so who knows how the polls will reflect it. At least Kerry will shore up support among those who thought he was a weak vessel.

Over here it was reported on the BBC that neither struck a 'knock-out' blow, so it's going to be a case of how well their respective spin-meisters finesse their messages.

Bush did get angry though - I reckon he was rattled a bit cos he couldn't put Kerry away...

jon

"Kerry didn't leave undecided voters with neatly packaged take-away phrases for describing Bush's inadequacies"

According to The Guardian The Democratic challenger lived up to his reputation for hitting his best form in the closing stages of an election race, answering his critics by delivering a string of short, declarative statements [...] He rejected Mr Bush's central claim that Iraq was a central front in the "global war on terror". "Iraq was not even close to the centre of the war on terror before the president invaded it," he said

"He’s clearly got the better policies"

This is what really confuses me. How can anyone possibly beleive this? Bush's policy in Iraq might just be the most dangerous and stupid thing any major political figure has ever done and has proved to be an umitigated disaster on many fronts.

Vanilla Ice is currently on a UK Reality TV program and got into a big argument about US politcy in Iraq with a slightly odd 60 year-old failed TV magician and quiz show host. Mr Ice is probably not the brightest tool in the box but he is presumably reasonably worldly and not just some guy who lives in the middle of Iowa and watches 30 secs of Fox News once a week. And yet he is absolutely convinced, to the point of stating it was "obvious" and "everyone knows it", that the US invaded Iraq to prevent terrorism becuase Saddam funded al-Qaeda.

Although I might strongly disagree, I can at least understand traditional Republicans like Bush Snr and how he represents a different political world view from the Democrats and how it's all rooted in core American values with which many US citizens identify strongly. Surely though Bush Jnr is such an obviously bad president and dangerous extremist that he transcends such party politics and the good people of America will get rid of him?

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Although I might strongly disagree, I can at least understand traditional Republicans like Bush Snr and how he represents a different political world view from the Democrats and how it's all rooted in core American values with which many US citizens identify strongly. Surely though Bush Jnr is such an obviously bad president and dangerous extremist that he transcends such party politics and the good people of America will get rid of him?

---

It would be good to think so but IMO too good to be true. Americans like Bush, the Republicans have got a slick campaign, and crucially, there is Florida again. Though it pains me to say it, I think Bush has this one sown up.

I have been wrong before though - I just hope I am again.

jon

Alex,

Don't forget...

You and I have an excellent history as accurate pundits....!

jon

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlexG:
That's my plan

---

Bush is gonna win. Blair is gonna win. I can't watch either of them at present without getting reaaaally worked up, to the extent that I think its damaging my health! I am serious.

I stayed up to watch it this morning, partly as a result of being energised by the Hartlepool by-election.

It was a shame to see another New Labour muppet get in, but at least their majority was smashed. Even better was to see the Tories making no progress at all - going backwards, in fact.

I always knew the Tories were in trouble as soon as they and their deadbeat supporters acclaimed someone as hopeless and as discredited and as deeply unpopular as Michael Howard as some kind of saviour. But coming fourth behind the loonies of UKIP on the eve of one's party conference – well, hilarious. The downside is of course that there is still a lack of a credible opposition so Blair will continue to get his way for some time to come.

To get back on thread, I thought Kerry just about won it - he certainly put on the best show of his campaign, although I'm not sure it will be enough to win over enough voters. Bush started off badly, visibly rattled by Kerry, but, skilful politcian that he is, managed to recover by the end. He actually uses his gaffes and mispronunciations to win people over, which is very clever.

I'd be surprised if he didn't win again, and then, in his second term, do something monumentally dumb, like invade Iran or Syria.

Kevin (DJ Shadow: Endtroducing)

quote:

---

Kerry didn't leave undecided voters with neatly packaged take-away phrases for describing Bush's inadequacies. He really needs to dumb down 2-3 key statements for people to gobble up.

---

Ludwig,
I thought he did this well. Look again at his response to Bush's war justification. Bush said, more or less, "They attacked us, we had to respond". Kerry's response was very simple and, I thought, as clear as anyone could ask: Kerry said, in one sentence, that al-Quaida attacked us, not Iraq.

There were other examples like this.

quote:

---

I'd be surprised if he didn't win again, and then, in his second term, do something monumentally dumb, like invade Iran or Syria.

---

Kevin,
This is possible, but I actually now think it's unlikely. Certainly the Dems have learned a painful lesson by handing over war authority to Bush in '02, and are less likely to repeat the mistake. And I think that Bush himself really has been personally troubled by the war and it's high cost in lives -- we saw a bit of this last night (I don't have the sense he was faking it). This sense of responsibility for his killing, although probably limited, is one of two positive features I think Bush has (the other being that he seems genuinely disgusted by racism, unlike many of his Republican predecessors.)

quote:

---

one of two positive features I think Bush has (the other being that he seems genuinely disgusted by racism, unlike many of his Republican predecessors.)

---

I am not sure how this stacks up with removing african american voters from the electoral roll in Florida? Besides, even Hitler had his good points - a bit of a dog lover apparently. Saying Bush has his good points is a bit like saying at least a nuclear bomb would brighten up a dull day.
Simon

quote:

---

Originally posted by ejl:

quote:

---

I'd be surprised if he didn't win again, and then, in his second term, do something monumentally dumb, like invade Iran or Syria.

---

This is possible, but I actually now think it's unlikely.

---

My view is that if Bush gets re-elected, an attack on Iran is a racing certainty. I guess it would be a limited mission to destroy Iran's nuclear capability and, hopefully, it would stop there.

Stevie 7

quote:

---

"He’s clearly got the better policies"

This is what really confuses me. How can anyone possibly beleive this? Bush's policy in Iraq might just be the most dangerous and stupid thing any major political figure has ever done and has proved to be an umitigated disaster on many fronts.

---

Fair point Matthew. Can you take this a step further and tell me how Kerry's policies are better ?

Jim

Jim,

If we were arguing Kerry Vs Bush Snr (say) then that would be a fair question. My point was really that Kerry must be better becuase it's essentially inconcievable he could be any worse then the current incumbant.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by ejl:
Ludwig,
I thought he did this well. Look again at his response to Bush's war justification. Bush said, more or less, "They attacked us, we had to respond". Kerry's response was very simple and, I thought, as clear as anyone could ask: Kerry said, in one sentence, that al-Quaida attacked us, not Iraq.

---

Yes, I think that was the one time that Kerry landed a hard blow. To me, listening by radio, his statements on Iraq not being the center of the war on terrorism could have been clearer, keeping the typical Fox news viewer in mind. Just IMO of course.

WRT Bush, my criticism of him is that he came off as all-knowing- "the world doesn't work like that", "bilateral talks with North Korea will fail", "the commander in chief can't lead the troops like that", etc. I imagine his repeated statements on "hard work" and staying the course/finishing the job/etc will give the casual viewer (the accurate) impression that Bush thinks that (the status quo) is good enough.

Okay then, I'll loosen my position- draw.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Lawson:
Fair point Matthew. Can you take this a step further and tell me how Kerry's policies are better ?

---

It's not the policies- they barely change- it's the tactics. Bush is stubborn and doesn't listen, he acts unilateraly by default, projects and all-knowing and forceful America, and doesn't believe in compromise. You can't be an effective leader with those traits and lead the world to a better place, and he hasn't. Kerry's a listener, is willing to change course to achieve the ultimate goal, and wants to project a US that's a better example for the world, compromising when it can and acting unilateraly only when it has to.

Ludwig,

quote:

---

Bush is stubborn and doesn't listen, he acts unilateraly by default, projects and all-knowing and forceful America, and doesn't believe in compromise. You can't be an effective leader with those traits and lead the world to a better place, and he hasn't. Kerry's a listener, is willing to change course to achieve the ultimate goal, and wants to project a US that's a better example for the world, compromising when it can and acting unilateraly only when it has to.

---

Bingo. Bush is like Captain Kirk and Kerry is like Jean-Luc.

Joe, who would cast his vote for the baldy but can't because he's a damn for'ner

"Can you take this a step further and tell me how Kerry's policies are better ?"

"If we were arguing Kerry Vs Bush Snr (say) then that would be a fair question."

So that was an unfair question ?

I think I'll step away from this one...

Jim
quietly leaves room so as not to jangle any nerves...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ludwig:
Kerry's a listener, is willing to change course to achieve the ultimate goal, and wants to project a US that's a better example for the world, compromising when it can and acting unilateraly only when it has to.

---

IMO exactly what the world needs from a US president, except the Republicans are going to play on the above traits for all they are worth, as examples of Kerry's apparent dithering and indecision.

The question is: are there are enough US voters out there with the savvy to see through that?

jon

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonR:
The question is: are there are enough US voters out there with the savvy to see through that?

---

No.