Results 1 to 10 of 14
Thread: Bush Won !!
11-03-2004, 06:43 PM #1
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
11-03-2004, 09:11 PM #2bliksterCGuest
I am not happy about it. Bush wasn't my choice for president but apparently the majority wanted him in office and as pathetic as that is to some of us, it's true. I am relocating my family to Spain in the first quarter of 2005, anyway.
Others that don't want to live in America while Bush is in power say they are going to expatriate to Canada. I have heard this from some of the gay population whose rights have been banned in America.
I'm interested to hear what others think. Let's all keep this a nice thread and not flame anyone for their opinions, though. That way members of WHC will feel comfortable to speak their own minds.
11-03-2004, 10:59 PM #3
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
11-03-2004, 11:32 PM #4bliksterCGuestOriginally Posted by ldcdc
The EURO has been hitting new highs against the $ for the last 3 or 4 days from what I've seen. Hopefully, things will turn around but don't expect it to be before the end of this year. Euro will continue to stay above 1.2500 steady for the remainder of the year, if not higher. And of course, this is all IMHO
Good for the Euro but bad for those of us who brings in mostly $ income.
11-03-2004, 11:39 PM #5bliksterCGuest
This is an interesting piece...I completely agree with Arianna on this one.
ANATOMY OF A CRUSHING POLITICAL DEFEAT
By Arianna Huffington
This election was not stolen. It was lost by the Kerry campaign.
The reason it's so important to make this crystal clear — even as Kerry's concession speech is still ringing in our ears — is that to the victors go not only the spoils but the explanations. And the Republicans are framing their victory as the triumph of conservative moral values and the wedge cultural issues they exploited throughout the campaign.
But it wasn't gay marriage that did the Democrats in; it was the fatal decision to make the pursuit of undecided voters the overarching strategy of the Kerry campaign.
This meant that at every turn the campaign chose caution over boldness so as not to offend the undecideds who, as a group, long to be soothed and reassured rather than challenged and inspired.
The fixation on undecided voters turned a campaign that should have been about big ideas, big decisions, and the very, very big differences between the worldviews of John Kerry and George Bush — both on national security and domestic priorities — into a narrow trench war fought over ludicrous non-issues like whether Kerry had bled enough to warrant a Purple Heart.
This timid, spineless, walking-on-eggshells strategy — with no central theme or moral vision — played right into the hands of the Bush-Cheney team's portrayal of Kerry as an unprincipled, equivocating flip-flopper who, in a time of war and national unease, stood for nothing other than his desire to become president.
The Republicans spent a hundred million dollars selling this image of Kerry to the public. But the public would not have bought it if the Kerry campaign had run a bold, visionary race that at every moment and every corner contradicted the caricature.
Kerry's advisors were so obsessed with not upsetting America's fence-sitting voters they ended up driving the Kerry bandwagon straight over the edge of the Grand Canyon, where the candidate proclaimed that even if he knew then what we all know now — that there were no WMD in Iraq — he still would have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
This equivocation was not an accidental slip. It was the result of a strategic decision — once again geared to undecided voters — not to take a decisive, contrary position on Iraq. In doing so, the Kerry camp failed to recognize that this election was a referendum on the president's leadership on the war on terror. (Jamie Rubin, who had been hired by the campaign as a foreign-policy advisor, went so far as to tell the Washington Post that Kerry, too, would likely have invaded Iraq.)
It was only after the polls started going south for Kerry, with the president opening a double-digit lead according to some surveys, that his campaign began to rethink this disastrous approach. The conventional wisdom had it that it was the Swift Boat attacks that were responsible for Kerry's late-summer drop in the polls but, in fact, it was the vacuum left by the lack of a powerful opposing narrative to the president's message on the war on terror — and whether Iraq was central to it — that allowed the attacks on Kerry's leadership and war record to take root.
We got a hint of what might have been when Kerry temporarily put aside the obsession with undecideds and gave a bold, unequivocal speech at New York University on Sept. 20 eviscerating the president's position on Iraq. This speech set the scene for Kerry's triumph in the first debate.
Once Kerry belatedly began taking on the president on the war on terror and the war on Iraq — "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" — he started to prevail on what the president considered his unassailable turf.
You would have thought that keeping up this line of attack day in and day out would have clearly emerged as the winning strategy — especially since the morning papers and the nightly news were filled with stories on the tragic events in Iraq, the CIA's no al-Qaida/Saddam link report, and the Duelfer no-WMD report.
Instead, those in charge of the Kerry campaign ignored this giant, blood-red elephant standing in the middle of the room and allowed themselves to be mesmerized by polling and focus group data that convinced them that domestic issues like jobs and health care were the way to win.
The Clintonistas who were having a greater and greater sway over the campaign — including Joe Lockhart, James Carville and the former president himself — were convinced it was "the economy, stupid" all over again, which dovetailed perfectly with the beliefs of chief strategist Bob Shrum and campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill.
But what worked for Clinton in the '90s completely failed Kerry in 2004, at a time of war, fear and anxiety about more terrorist attacks. And even when it came to domestic issues, the message was tailored to the undecideds.
Bolder, more passionate language that Kerry had used during the primary — like calling companies hiding their profits in tax shelters "the Benedict Arnolds of corporate America" — was dropped for fear of scaring off undecideds and Wall Street. Or was it Wall Street undecideds? ("This was very unfortunate language," Roger Altman, Clinton's Deputy Treasury Secretary told me during the campaign. "We've buried it." And indeed, the phrase was quickly and quietly deleted from the Kerry Web site.)
Sure, Kerry spoke about Iraq until the end (how could he not?), but the majority of the speeches, press releases and ads coming out of the campaign, including Kerry's radio address to the nation 10 days before the election, were on domestic issues.
The fact that Kerry lost in Ohio, which had seen 232,000 jobs evaporate and 114,000 people lose their health insurance during the Bush years, shows how wrong was the polling data the campaign based its decisions on.
With Iraq burning, WMD missing, jobs at Herbert Hoover-levels, flu shots nowhere to be found, gas prices through the roof, and Osama bin Laden back on the scene looking tanned, rested, and ready to rumble, this should have been a can't-lose election for the Democrats. Especially since they were more unified than ever before, had raised as much money as the Republicans, and were appealing to a country where 55 percent of voters believed we were headed in the wrong direction.
But lose it they did.
So the question inevitably becomes: What now?
Already there are those in the party convinced that, in the interest of expediency, Democrats need to put forth more "centrist" candidates — i.e. Republican-lite candidates — who can make inroads in the all-red middle of the country.
I'm sorry to pour salt on raw wounds, but isn't that what Tom Daschle did? He even ran ads showing himself hugging the president! But South Dakotans refused to embrace this lily-livered tactic. Because, ultimately, copycat candidates fail in the way "me-too" brands do.
Unless the Democratic Party wants to become a permanent minority party, there is no alternative but to return to the idealism, boldness and generosity of spirit that marked the presidencies of FDR and JFK and the short-lived presidential campaign of Bobby Kennedy.
Otherwise, the Republicans will continue their winning ways, convincing tens of millions of hard working Americans to vote for them even as they cut their services and send their children off to die in an unjust war.
Democrats have a winning message. They just have to trust it enough to deliver it. This time they clearly didn't.
© 2004 ARIANNA HUFFINGTON.
DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
11-04-2004, 02:54 AM #6
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
Very good article. I read it all. Still, what I care about right now is the dollar. The ellection is over and there's nothing to do about it.
The dollar's downfall affects me directly and immediately because I live in a Euro zone. I just hope this clear election win (good or bad as it may prove to be in the future) will give the $ a boost or I'll exchange all the $$ I have into my national currency and Euros.
11-04-2004, 10:33 AM #7bliksterCGuest
Euro is hitting new highs against the dollar today...again...so no luck in sight
EURO broke resistance and is at 1.2888 and climbing!!!! Key resistance is 1.2925 and if it breaks that, we're looking at 1.30.
Swiss Franc, Aussie and Yen are all punishing the dollar. I won't even mention the pound. Swiss Franc is at an 8 YEAR HIGH against the dollar!!!! Dollar is being punished in nearly every market!!
To make it worse...economic data (job creations) will realease tomorrow and we all know how bad those results will be.
11-04-2004, 03:43 PM #8
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- North Dakota
Ok seriouly ppl if you cant deal with who we have in our administraton (for U.S. Citizens only) then there is a problem. Yes Bush might not be the perfect canidate...but he is alot better than Mr. Kerry. Look if we cant act as one nation then go ahead get out of this country and dont come back.....The US is a democracy that is why we vote. if you dont like who is in office...you have to deal with it....its a fact of life. Yes I am very very opinionated on this subject but I am a very proud citizen. I will always be proud to be a citizen of this great country no matter who is in the WHite House. America is a land of oppertunies and many other things...Lets all just act as one country, on nation not 2 damn different parties.......
Also for all of you who think the President is responsible for job creation....think again...he has no more power than you or I do. When GWB took office 4 years ago he inherited a reccession from the Clinton administration. Yea he might have been able to do a little more to fix it but you know he is only human just like you and me. Give the poor guy a chance and lets stop this hatered for each other just because one person has different belifs than you do.
*****Just a note if this post offended you I am sorry upfront but I am not gonna be some Politically correct moron like many ppl belive we should be. I speak my mind and this is an open topic forum and so i spoke my mind. This is not intended to offend ne one but I am sure out there somewhere someone will be offended by it!!!***********
11-04-2004, 04:46 PM #9BlikWerkGuest
Well, I usually stay out of discussions on WHC and let Christina represent us on this forum but i just have to participate in this thread.
Luke, I don't think that your post offended anyone. This thread is exactly what you said it was...an open forum...
But since we're speaking openly...
I will always be proud to be a citizen of this great country no matter who is in the WHite House
It's healthy for a democracy to question it's leaders. They do represent us do they not? Should we not hold our leaders accountable for their actions they claim in our name? I think when you stop dissent ([n] A difference of opinion) in a democracy, you kill the spirit on which we were founded.
There isn't a problem with disagreeing. Should the 48% (56 million people) that voted against Bush because they are against his policies, automagically change their opinions? You just conceded that you would follow our commander in chief in anything he does. This is dangerous and the catalyst for a very dangerous situation.
If not for us dissenters (proud to be called that as Thomas Jefferson was a great man and a dissenter), then the government would run amuck as it did in Nazi Germany (Hitler was elected by the people).
The fact is that this president...your president...my president...LIED to his country and not just about an adulterous sexual relationship that should be between a man and his wife as in the Clinton lie, but about the reasons for invading another country.
And yet, America...my country has said through their votes that they approve of his tactics and accept being lied to.
That is why this is a sad day in America for those of us who don't like being lied to and do not believe in following bad leadership blindly into a hellstorm...
No one said that it was the prez's job to create jobs...although it is his administration's duty to ensure a working middle class has ample work available. Now, by giving huge grants to huge corps to move their businesses overseas (notice I didn't say outsourcing. I believe some outsourcing is fine and indeed unavoidable) the president is ENDING jobs...let alone not creating jobs.
You don't think that the quagmire in Iraq has anything to do with our economy being in the crapper? The dollar is being punished because of the statistics and economic data coming out of the US. If his administration isn't responsible for this data...who is? Because maybe we should find him and give him a good beating.
***Please noone take offense to my views I am simply speaking my mind as openly and honestly as I know how.
I'm glad this thread has remained civil and perhaps with a little discourse ([n]An extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic) we can see where the real problems are in the US. Because, you can't honestly say that we're in great shape right now. And to blame these last 4 years on the previous 8 years prior to that is not accepting that there is an issue now that needs to be resolved.***
11-06-2004, 01:35 AM #10
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- North Dakota
OMG not this who he betrayed his country BS.......how could he have lied....do you honestly think it was a great thing for the world to have Sadamm in power still....after all the horrid things he has done...I sure dont.....another item i dont follow the president on all things....theres alot i dont agree with him on....but he happens to be my CIC and also the leader of this great democracy that has taken us years to build and still needs work cause it will never be perfect.....and please enlighten me as to what this so called lie is.....John Kerry himself said Sadamm is a threat.....and everyone in the senate and in the white house followed through on intellegence that was given to them by a "reliable" resource "CIA" but was found AFTER the fact to be faulty info. Yes we might not have found WMD but we have liberated a country of a crude ruler.....let them decide for themselves now how they will live thier lives....
The goal in Iraq is to try and secure it to the best of our militarys ability and also train up Iraq's new military. When these missions and all other missions are completed then we can pull out of Iraq.....Mr. Bush acted wisely in not using the UN....they are a bunch of corrupted fools...the UN is hasbeen they are ineffective in todays society.
Also please tell me how the Iraq war is any different than what went on if Afganistan....Also the mainstream media which many but not all people rely on for news is very anti-bush...look for the sake of tryin to simply prove things are happening in Iraq that are good and its not a total waste of our time here is a link i found to show some things. Clcick Here