New York Times endorsement of John Kerry

[Rspaight]

Don't vote for Kerry because he'll let terrorists eat your baby! And he'll force to watch gay married couples having anal sex! And he'll let France make our national security decisions! And he'll ban the Bible! And he'll raise your taxes by 2.3 trillion dollars! And he's using scare tactics!

I'm glad I'm not making this up. I'd worry about my sanity.

Ryan

[krabapple]

It's something I often wonder about when I see that Bush is slightly leading Kerry in the US polls. Are Americans aware of how much they (as a nation, not as a people) are hated around the world right now because of the Bush Administration. Are they so blinded by this "threat of terror" that they don't care about losing membership in the world community. I think it's because your media refuses to acknowledge this. We have Americans who come to Toronto and are utterly shocked by the amount of anti-Americanism that is present here (we're about 80 miles by road to the border). The mind boggles.

The general thought - especially from the Republican party - seems to be "we're the US. We'll do what we want. We don't need the world to 'like' us."

"Except on economic issues" There was an article abhot this in the Post or Times sunday sections a week or two ago -- abotu how, for all its go-it-alone posturing, the Bush admin has been happy to court consensus with the Europeans and other swhen it comes to matters of money.

[krabapple]

But that's what so scary for non-Americans. Either Americans are total idiots or Kerry is really a bad candidate (or a bit of both). I mean Bush is undoubtedly the worst US president in history - it shouldn't even be close. Not only is he a buffoon (and his Administration "sinister" to say the least) but he has broken international laws by invading Iraq, killing close to 20,000 Iraqis in the process. If he was the leader of a non-first world country, he'd be in The Hague tomorrow on War Crimes charges. This is not liberal bombast.

Well, it is, a bit. How many murderous leaders are currently in the Hague on war crimes charges, anyway? When's Kim Il Jong's time in the docket? How many were killed by each side in the Vietnam war?

Worst president in history? Hmm, don't know about that either. History will decide. I can see GWB being in the top ten. I think Warren Harding currently tends to top most historians' lists.

This isn't to support Bush, which I certainly don't. But you have to also see that from a US perspective, some of the foreign critique can seem just as OTT as our administration does to them. And of course it's the sort of spitting that the right has a field day with.

[czeskleba]

A major part of the "problem" is that the mainstream, corporate controlled media simply won't give them a chance to put forth that repeated and unified message. They won't play the Kerry soundbites and *his* three-word catchprases (and, yes, he does make them too) in the same way that they absolutely hammer home the Bushisms.

Kerry makes trouble for himself too, by having too many messages and too many ideas. He talks about Iraq, Korea, nuclear stockpiles, healthcare, taxes, the deficit, social security, unemployment, stem cells, and more. That's too much, and too complex. He has failed to narrow his campaign down to 2 or 3 simple themes that he can repeat ad nauseum.

Look at Bush... he has just three ideas this campaign, and he repeats them incessantly: 1. Kerry is weak on terrorism/national defense, 2. Kerry is a liberal/will raise your taxes, 3. Kerry is an indecisive flip-flopper. And look how effective it's been. All the polls show that the majority of Americans continue to think Kerry is indecisive and that Bush is stronger on defense, in spite of the facts.

If Kerry did the same thing, said the same three things over and over, it would be harder for the media to thwart him. Kerry's message should be: 1. Bush rushed into a stupid war with Iraq, 2. Bush doesn't care about unemployment and thinks outsourcing American jobs to damn foreigners is good, and 3. Bush wants to cut your social security to give more tax cuts to the rich. Focus on those over and over, and they would start to stick with people.

[Mike Hunte]

Look at Bush... he has just three ideas this campaign, and he repeats them incessantly: 1. Kerry is weak on terrorism/national defense, 2. Kerry is a liberal/will raise your taxes, 3. Kerry is an indecisive flip-flopper. And look how effective it's been.

I'll respectfully disagree with you (though your point is certainly well taken).

I truly believe that Bush floats just as many "scattered" messages/ideas as Kerry on the campaign trail (e.g. gay marriage, gun control, etc...), as any politican probably would. Sure, they all fall under a larger ideological umbrella, but it's simply the media machine that chooses to narrow it down to 3 or 4 dumb-downed and packaged themes (often personally selected and handed to them by Rove) - using their method of hit-and-run soundbites with no opportunity for a refute. *That's* why it's effective. The fact that they have the power structure set up to repeat these themes ad nauseum (e.g. the demonization of the word "liberal" is a result of this).

Conversely, Kerry *does* repeat his own simplified, packaged themes/ideas at campaign stops: "Bush's handling of the war has been a major failure," "Bush's agenda is based more on personal ideology than for the greater good," and, yes, "Social Security." Again, these soundbites just don't get the media attention that the Prez's do. When they do, as in the latest case of the Social Security debate, the Prez gets another trump card rebuttal ("Kerry's using scare tactics") that helps to weaken the impact of the message. Once again, courtesy of the mainstream media.

Don't get me wrong, I've been hard on the Dems in the past (e.g. for lying down without a fight), but have come to realize that the corporate media machine is just too hard a nut to crack. Only if the story is too *big* to ignore....will the Dems then get a mainstream media platform.

Again, it's time to quit analyzing what we think the Dems are "doing wrong." They'll be plenty of time for a post-game analysis. IMHO, it becomes self-defeating in the long-run. Unity is the key. That is something the Repubs, unfortunately, have. They'll eat their young before ever admitting that life on the campaign trail is anything but rosy (i.e. that they're doing anything wrong).

KEEP FIGHTING!

[Gee Oh Are Tea]

Well, it is, a bit. How many murderous leaders are currently in the Hague on war crimes charges, anyway? When's Kim Il Jong's time in the docket? How many were killed by each side in the Vietnam war?

Worst president in history? Hmm, don't know about that either. History will decide. I can see GWB being in the top ten. I think Warren Harding currently tends to top most historians' lists.

OK, I'll defer to you on the Harding selection because a) I'm not American, and b) I certainly don't have a great knowledge of all the US presidents and their shortcomings.

However, when it comes to "foreign criticism" the US and its citizens are really insular (especially post 9-11). Other than the G8 countries sucking up to the US (Britain, Italy) and the the rest of The Coalition Of Minor-League Countries, is it strictly coincidence that the rest of the world thinks that current US Foreign Policy is morally bankrupt? Would it be acceptable (in 2004) for any other country to bomb the crap out of a country that isn't even fighting back, killing thousands of its citizens at the same time - a country that hasn't done anything?

The US is playing 9-11 and this war the same way that Israel does with suicide bombings and their own reciprocated actions. The former are made to look real bad even though the response always leads to a much greater number of people being killed. The US hates the concept of "equivalence" ("You're comparing 9-11 to the Iraq War??"). But how is the Iraq War not an act of "state terrorism"? As far as I could tell, Saddam had not killed a single American and hadn't launched any attack on the U.S. The U.S. invades but its supposed reason for doing so ends up being erroneous. Thousands have died in the process. You mention this and Republicans and other patriotic Americans just shrug their shoulders. It's unbelievable. Perhaps someone can give me the "exchange rate" on American vs non-American lives. Is it one American life equals ten others? Is it 100-1? 1000-1? Infinitum?

9-11 came out of nowhere and the world (in general) was very sympathetic and supportive of the U.S. I can assure you that after the next one, the reaction will not be same (other than the "official sympathy" cards from Heads of State).

Cliff

[czeskleba]

Only if the story is too *big* to ignore....will the Dems then get a mainstream media platform.

I respectfully disagree. I don't agree that the media has a pro-conservative bias, in general. I think primarily they are biased toward simplicity, sensationalism, and novelty. I think sometimes the Republicans have an advantage because they are better at manipulating that, ever since the days of Willie Horton. The area the Democrats could make a difference would be commercials. They have not run any really down and dirty commercials (ala the Swift Boat crap) that would generate controversy the media could not ignore. Where's the commercial featuring the footage of Bush sitting on his ass reading My Pet Goat while the WTC collapses? Where's the commercial with Bush saying "I don't care about Osama Bin Laden"?

Again, it's time to quit analyzing what we think the Dems are "doing wrong." They'll be plenty of time for a post-game analysis. IMHO, it becomes self-defeating in the long-run. Unity is the key. That is something the Repubs, unfortunately, have. They'll eat their young before ever admitting that life on the campaign trail is anything but rosy (i.e. that they're doing anything wrong).

I see your point, but I think the time to analyze what's being done wrong is when there is still time to correct it.

[lukpac]

Where's the commercial featuring the footage of Bush sitting on his ass reading My Pet Goat while the WTC collapses? Where's the commercial with Bush saying "I don't care about Osama Bin Laden"?

I vote for the Daily Show's "Governor Bush vs. President Bush".

I see your point, but I think the time to analyze what's being done wrong is when there is still time to correct it.

I think "Mike" is just saying the Dems shouldn't "show weakness" now.

[krabapple]

Well, it is, a bit. How many murderous leaders are currently in the Hague on war crimes charges, anyway? When's Kim Il Jong's time in the docket? How many were killed by each side in the Vietnam war?

Worst president in history? Hmm, don't know about that either. History will decide. I can see GWB being in the top ten. I think Warren Harding currently tends to top most historians' lists.

OK, I'll defer to you on the Harding selection because a) I'm not American, and b) I certainly don't have a great knowledge of all the US presidents and their shortcomings.

However, when it comes to "foreign criticism" the US and its citizens are really insular (especially post 9-11). Other than the G8 countries sucking up to the US (Britain, Italy) and the the rest of The Coalition Of Minor-League Countries, is it strictly coincidence that the rest of the world thinks that current US Foreign Policy is morally bankrupt? Would it be acceptable (in 2004) for any other country to bomb the crap out of a country that isn't even fighting back, killing thousands of its citizens at the same time - a country that hasn't done anything?

The US is playing 9-11 and this war the same way that Israel does with suicide bombings and their own reciprocated actions. The former are made to look real bad even though the response always leads to a much greater number of people being killed. The US hates the concept of "equivalence" ("You're comparing 9-11 to the Iraq War??"). But how is the Iraq War not an act of "state terrorism"? As far as I could tell, Saddam had not killed a single American and hadn't launched any attack on the U.S. The U.S. invades but its supposed reason for doing so ends up being erroneous. Thousands have died in the process. You mention this and Republicans and other patriotic Americans just shrug their shoulders. It's unbelievable. Perhaps someone can give me the "exchange rate" on American vs non-American lives. Is it one American life equals ten others? Is it 100-1? 1000-1? Infinitum?

9-11 came out of nowhere and the world (in general) was very sympathetic and supportive of the U.S. I can assure you that after the next one, the reaction will not be same (other than the "official sympathy" cards from Heads of State).

Cliff

Again, this is all loaded with OTT and not-quite-accurate accusations mixed in with dollops of truth, and that's at least part of the reason some Americans would shrug. Others would do so because they're flag-waving morons who reject the very idea of criticism. It would be a mistake to believe all who discount arguments like the ones above, are the latter. A big problem in the US right now, of course, is that our own *administration* appears to be catering to the flag-waving moron crowd (if not being itself populated by same).

I feel like I could debate pretty much every sentence you use up there, not necessarily as being essentially wrong, but for being phrased carelessly enough that the truths are diluted by the noise. But I really don't care to get into debating specifics, since there's hundreds of websites and print media articles available regarding the pros and cons of the points you raise, and I'm sur eyou're smart enough to know that. I think the sources that attempt a dissection of the facts, with scrupulous phrasing of the analysis, are more useful and more accurate than the ones that deal in phrase-bombs.

[Rspaight]

I don't agree that the media has a pro-conservative bias, in general. I think primarily they are biased toward simplicity, sensationalism, and novelty. I think sometimes the Republicans have an advantage because they are better at manipulating that, ever since the days of Willie Horton.

This is a very perceptive point. I agree completely, but would go further and argue that the Reagan campaigns were the blueprint for all the simple-minded nationalist guff that has emanated from the GOP since. I note with some embarrassment that the first time I ever heard the noxious "God Bless The USA" was at a Reagan rally in the fall of 1984. (I wore my Mondale/Ferraro button without incident. I wouldn't be *allowed* into a Bush rally with a Kerry/Edwards button. How times have changed -- when Reagan looks like a paragon of open-mindedness, you know you're in trouble.)

Ever since Reagan completely shut down the (completely valid, as it turned out) concern about his age and mental faculties with a glib one-liner in the '84 debates ("I refuse to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience"), it's been clear that a meaningless but memorable catch-phrase ("serial exaggerator," "earth tones," "flip-flopper") is far more useful that a factual, well-reasoned argument.

Ryan

[stinsojd]

I can't remember... did Bush resurrect Reagan's classic "Well, there you go again" quote at all during the debates? I'm sure that would have REALLY helped send his poll points through the stratosphere!

I applaud (and agree with) the person who surmised the media's bias toward simplicity, sensationalism, and novelty. No doubt, other biases and affiliations do affect how things are reported on occasion, but - as with so many things - laziness and lack of imagination often win the day.

[Beatlesfan03]

From what I saw of the debates, Bush reminded me quite a bit of Horshack from Welcome Back Kotter.

Ooh ooh ooh Mr. Moderator, I want to answer that question.

Admittedly, he sharpened up during the last two debates (even cut the snarling), but I still think he was leagues behind Kerry.

[Gee Oh Are Tea]

Again, this is all loaded with OTT and not-quite-accurate accusations mixed in with dollops of truth, and that's at least part of the reason some Americans would shrug.

None of this is OTT. Americans shrug because it seems so crazy that it can't be the truth. The US, without ANY provocation from Iraq, flew missions over their country and dropped many bombs. Conservative estimates are between 13,000 and 15,000 civilian deaths (I'm not even counting the "insurgent" caused deaths that have occured as a result of the lawlessness post-occupation).

That's the problems with Americans - chronic myopia. You all go on about 9-11 and everyone knows what happened and how many people died. But I'm sure most Americans feel the largest number of casualties in Iraq are the 1000 odd US military people and "a whole bunch of Iraqi bad guys". Not unlike the fact that roughly three times as many Palestinian civilians have died as a result of Israeli military actions as Israelis have died from Palestinian "terrorist" actions.

The fact is, the rest of the world relies on the US for great economic benefit and trade. Not one government has the guts to actually come out and say "George W Bush, you have killed X number of people in Iraq as a result of your misadventure". Do you think Americans have any idea how many non-Americans died in Viet Nam?? No, it's all about the 57,000 or so and the Washington Memorial. I don't know the exact number of Vietnamese deaths but it's a factor several times that of the U.S. And again, another part of the world you had no business being in.

Oh, sorry, this is all OTT. What is it that Americans have against hard facts?? You all need to spend some time in "wimpy, cowardly" countries like Canada and France to see the truth from the outside.

Cliff

[krabapple]

None of this is OTT.

<shrug> Point #1: Even the UN agreed that there was *provocation* from Iraq - namely, resistance to inspections and refusal to cooperate fully with same. The issue is whether it warranted the response it got, or whether more diplomacy would have improved the situation.

Nor did I write that is was *all* OTT. I specifically *didn't* write it as *all* OTT for a reason.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Learn to modulate, or else be a ranting caricature that only like-minded ranters will listen to.

[Gee Oh Are Tea]

OK ... calming down. Your point 1 is correct. That's where the world and the US disagree - the response and the alleged threat.

As I said, perhaps to Americans ears, one might come across as a "ranting caricature". Believe me, I am considered almost comatose compared to the general feelings of a lot of Canadians. I think it is because we watch the American news coverage and other American television, and see all this crap with Bush going on "protecting you" and then Kerry going on about "no, I'll protect you better", when THERE IS NO THREAT. Yes, of course, there is terrorism. Rather than create a bigger base of terrorists by invading countries (and at one time, a lot of people thought that Iran or Syria were next on the list "since we're in the neighbourhood"), how about trying some diplomacy and making some friends?

Ranting aside, Americans will never fully understand how their country is perceived. One lady raised it during the second debate ("My daughter was in Europe and felt great hostility toward the US"). But the issue is never really discussed on US television. The big question - "Why do they hate us?" - is always limited to "crazy Islamists". Well, that's just not the case. Here in Canada, many politicians and business people are really concerned about the increase in anti-Americanism and the effect it has on business and tourism.

I'll conclude by saying that Iraq was a rogue nation not unlike several others. And the idea of giving WMD's to terrorists can occur at any time (i.e North Korea and Al Qaeda). Since the current Administration has no one capable of diplomacy (with Colin Powell likely to leave), where does the US go from here to satisfy its enormous paranoia??