Why Bush got re-elected

by Michael Tue Nov 02, 2004 22:02

First, I take it that your reference to WMD's is a reference to Iraq, no? America's finest experts have searched high and low for WMD in Iraq and have come up with nothing. Did they not look hard enough? Were they not on the same page as Bush perhaps? What book is it he's reading from - the one with the goat?

Second, Americans might do well to investigate what is it that motivated the 911 attackers, and how they might be able to avoid such international crimes against humanity happening in New York or anywhere else ever again. "They hate freedom" is the stock reply from Bush and his ilk. The smarter, more daring neocons in Washington will put it more straight to you though: it's about empire and resisting empire. Nobody likes to be pushed around, but then that's the only way to reach America's goal (global supremacy through full spectrum domination).

by Usama bin Laden - Al-Qaeda Tue Nov 02, 2004 22:18 usama at al-qaeda dot com N/A

"Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation.

Just as you lay waste to our nation, so shall we lay waste to yours. "

by Rolf Tue Nov 02, 2004 23:09

Saddam retained ability and will to have/use WMD and was in violation of the rules the UN set out.
I agree prevention better than cure for terrorism, but Osama was against the US because of they had their troops in S Arabia and because they were not strict muslims.
Solution crush Al Qaeda - pretty simple.

As for the second post, are you really going to listen to the guy who first said he didnt do it and then chuckled about the success and then said the president left people to die in the towers?

by Michael Wed Nov 03, 2004 00:10

"Saddam retained ability and will to have/use WMD" -- Really? C'mon Rolf, even Washington has moved on from the WMD excuse for invading Iraq. Didn't you get the memo? It's to protect human rights -- shut down Saddam's torture prisons and whatnot. Oh and to bring peace and stability to the people too.

Repeat after me: Iraq did *not* have any WMD, or indeed any WMD program when America invaded in 2003. None. How you can tell what Saddam's "will" is or was I wonder, but it doesn't matter anyway because having aspirations of some sort or another isn't a reason to be attacked.

Ireland sits between two Middle East countries in the UN General Assembly beginning with "I". One of them has weapons of mass destruction, the other does not. They have both been in breech of all sorts of UN resolutions, though one of them much longer than the other (over 30 years now). Can you guess which one is Israel?

by Rolf Wed Nov 03, 2004 00:58

Im just telling you why Bush got reelected...what exactly are you discussing?

by Rolf Wed Nov 03, 2004 07:40

After I wrote the initial post I went to Betfair, there was a big swing to Kerry on some v early exit polls (!!)
I backed Bush at 3-1, how can I donate to indymedia.ie?

by Michael Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:00

To make a donation using a credit card click on "donate" in the left column, otherwise just click on the hyperlink below what I'm writing.
Oh yeh, and sorry for missing your point like that. You're probably right. If Bush is re-elected it will be for "his great leadership", "facing up to terrorists and tyrants", and "putting America first". Those will be the reasons given in some media outlets and by millions of bleating Americans.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57

Currently Bush has 254 college votes and 98% of the Ohio vote has been counted with Bush in the lead by over 100,000 votes.
270 is the minimum Bush needs.
VICTORY TO BUSH!

by War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:58

The real conspiracy is the official story which is just pure fantasy!

by Fatalist Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:53

At least we won't have to make up any new slogans and all those banners we made we can use for another four years -- sweet!. Better the Devil you know.

by iosaf Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:54

I went to sleep at 04h00 C€T this morning, left a housemate (french) in the TV room "monitoring" the satelites. At that stage the Euro-press ( El Pais - La Vanguardia - Corriere dela Sera - Le Monde - Welt) were calling close finish with Kerry slightly ahead.
The Americans overseas (for Kerry) party in "uptown Barcelona" got onto telly and everyone was "biting their nails". I had left at 23h30 (coz to be honest I'm not really the type, and I started getting the vibe that if I stayed "it would go down on my permanent record")
It's all quite odd, this morning's news kiosks are all reflecting mainland European prejudice and hope "kerry kerry please let it be kerry". The TV this morning has now called Bush, with the presenters on French German Spanish and local Catalan TV asking "how could this happen?". One expert succinctly put it this way-
"American Christians are different to us". The arabic channels are (as usual) splitting time between American affairs and the Iraqi war, and all have featured a report on Yasser Arafat who has been given the all clear on lukemia by the military hospital in Paris where he was surprisingly flown last week. He's ok, he's resting, he's safe and not thinking about going back to Palestine "tomorrow". The Israeli news services are trundling on as before "nothing has changed".
First off impressions are that this result has caused the little hairs to go up on the hairy back of "old Europe".
There will be no thaw of the already very frosty relationship between France / Germany and Spain with Washington. And this means no widening support in the reconstruction of Iraq or let up in the Palestinian war. In fact a hardening of anti-Sharon attitudes seems likely.
There will be no "extra" investment in conflict zones in Europe from American sources, no helping hand from Washington in the north of Ireland or Euskal Herria to create jobs, make people happy and encourage them to forget who their parents didn't like.
There will be a steady and sure and "legitimate" (at least in American terms) further erosion of civil, personal and constitutional rights for those many millions (yet still the minority) of American citizens who aren't fundamentalist - sexist - racist - supremacist - Christians.

And that's it.
"This is Iosaf Mac D., live from a Barcelona internet café, because quite oddly our household computers went "pop" last Thursday, and our server (a humble recycled machine) is in quarantine till we figure out what happened to it. Thanks be to plastic Jesus & plastic Elvis & plastic Buddha - we still have the satelite."

;-)

by Noel Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:34

How about a big Hooray for the choice of American voters.

Hip Hip..........

What, just me again then?

by John Murdock - none Wed Nov 03, 2004 13:41

War is so loike yesterday gawd!!!!!
I've been thinking about the election in America and how disillusioned the American public really are about social problems such as poverty and poor health care. Kerry said he was hoping for a turnout of all the people who watched Fahrenheit 911 and supporters of Michael Moore to vote for him. What he didn’t realise that most people who were smart enough to go watch the movie and appreciate it probably were smart enough to vote for Nader. Anyways here’s my idea, most Americans now relate bush hating terrorist loving nuts with scruffy Michael Moore types. So as far as I’m concerned a great way to put the democracy back in democracy would be to get a load great looking people who say "yah roight" at the end of every sentence and dress them in the latest fashions and have them talk to the average Joe. "hi I'm rich roight, and I just think the health care system is absolutly shoite ya know" and "Osama bin Laden is sooooooooo yesterday, loike get with the program equality for everyone is soooo much cooler"

by ;-) - "me effin intranet servur is fahked" Wed Nov 03, 2004 13:57

For those of you who don't know, CATO is a liberal thinktank funded by Bill and Melinda Gates, and every now and again, patriotic american paranoid types say CATO funds indymedia indeed. - Imagine that. (apparantly Bill is very happy to see libertarians mostly use his software to spread the revolution).
Anyway, the CATO man is answering _your questions_ on BBC world at the moment.
All you have to do is phone the BBC or send them an email, and _you too_ can "have your say".
All eyes on Ohio.
At the moment, Bush leads by two electoral college votes, and of the votes counted has over 100,000 votes in Ohio, but Ohio state won't call the election till tomorrow (their time). There are a few extra "emergency ballots" but if the Ohio breakdown is reflected in those then Bush has it. Oh yep, no-one is mentioning the absentee or military votes yet. I suppose if you've invested millions in getting Bush out, now is the time you really want to see an Ohio recount, a repeat of the Chads, and ahem...
accusations of President Kerry stealing the election.

So I'll help you.
Email the BBC-
USelection@bbc.co.uk
tell them the Merrovinginvanjan has just called the election for Kerry, and the sudden surge in international markets in the pharmaceutical industry reflects global confidence in our new President Kerry's resolve to cure the Common Cold, AIDS, mouthsores, the pox, TB and ingrown toenails.
Oh and mention that it is quite apparent that Gates hasn't called yet. the line is "Bush is a figure who represents the divisions of america".

God Bless you. God Bless Gates.
God bless poor people.
God bless the wannadoo internet providor.
God curse Bush.
God curse telefonica.
God curse those with mouthsores, TB, AIDS, the pox and common cold who walketh upon their ingrown toenails and spread the wickedness of Hollywood in the shopping malls of Europe.

by Mike Wed Nov 03, 2004 14:21

"For those of you who don't know, CATO is a liberal thinktank funded by Bill and Melinda Gate"

A LIBERAL thinktank? I take it then that you consider Etzl the Hun a "moderate".

For those who don't know, the Cato Institute long predates the Gates rise to fortune. To use the term "right wing" may not be correct in 20th century terms (where we associate it with fascism). Perhaps best would be to call their ideology "Neo-Liberal" (aka Neo-Con) with the term "liberal" being understoood in it's 19th century meaning (free wheeling capitalism, minimal government restriction upon the rich and powerful). But please note that these people would be theoretically consistent and declare that freedom from government inrtrusion applies to everyone (too bad the poor folks don't have the money to make effective use of their rights).

In the US political context, the Cato Institute is quite CONSERVATIVE. But that's prmarily in economic terms, not social terms.

by 4 more years Wed Nov 03, 2004 15:17

58,286,937 voters said yes to George W. Bush. This is almost 60 million people, as many as the whole population of France!
There are only about 2 million rich people in USA. So the only conclusion we can make is that Bush was voted by average working class people. This should give something to think about for all those world "progressives" somewhere out there.

Bush has been accused of many things, one of them being that he dont care about working class americans and is only a puppet of big business. These elections proved this accusation being wrong. There must be something he is doing right because so many working class people vote for him and trust him and his politics.

by told you so Wed Nov 03, 2004 15:28

I did not support Kerry like a majority of the liberal 'lefts' on this site. I knew that Kerry was just the same as Bush, he would have implemented the exact same policy in Iraq. He would have attacked living condidtions of ordinary Americans in order to keep corporate America happy. I hope all you soft 'anti war' Kerry supporters are feeling completely gutted. I am not! I didn't support either Bush or Kerry.

by TheTroll Wed Nov 03, 2004 16:36

99% of the voters voted for a candidate who reloads the Zionist crusader's guns as fas as the murderous thieving Zionist crusaders can unload them into our Palestinian neighbors. Bush for 4 years. Kerry for 20.

The only mandates anyone got from the American election was Zionist crusaders, who now know that 99% of America supports the Zionist's bloodsoaked crusade; and Osama Bin Laden who can now point to the 99% as proof for a need of Muslims to join his cause because Americans are unrepentant in thier support of the Zionist's continuing bloodsoaked offenses.

by toneore Wed Nov 03, 2004 17:04 toneore at eircom dot net

It does look like GWB will be in the White House for the next four years. The Democrats should concede, and let the country get on with it.

When the final analysis comes out I think you will find that women voters, religious belief and terrorism worries were the driving forces behind W's victory.

There is no point in appealing to logic in a country that is still deeply traumatised by the events of 9/11 - and will remain so, for years to come. We here in the US are reminded of this everyday, in the disgraceful scenes of Beslan, Ken Bigley, and now Margaret Hassan. The murder of a Dutch film maker (indymedia silent again) because he "offended" the Islamic fundamentalists, should make you think again about what's really at stake - your freedom.

Most people in the US don't give a shit about the Palestinians now, and will back Israel. Suicide bombings and rembering how the Palestinians danced and cheered when the planes hit the WTC are still very fresh in the mind of people in the US. Their cause is over.

There are many people on the left, worldwide, now badly exposed by the result, and they should be asked about their views and actions and its implications - indymedia, Carol Coleman, The Guardian's Operation Clarke County, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom free-for-all with gay marriage, and the arrogant posturing and one-sidedness of the likes of Michael Moore. This kind of stuff is enough to turn people off, and vote for GWB, especially if you're an American living abroad with an absentee ballot.

Indymedia types seem more concerned about the religious in the USA than the religious in the Middle East. Think again.

Deal with it.

by pollster Wed Nov 03, 2004 17:10

According to the White House John Kerry has conceded the election to President George Bush.
Kerry has also called a news conference where he is expected to publically concede defeat.

by Noel Wed Nov 03, 2004 18:12

Troll,

That's correct buddy.
The US will always support democracies.
Israel is a democracy, the PA is not.

Go figure.

by Misty Wed Nov 03, 2004 18:15

Do people think that Bush's convincing reelection will lead to a greater anti Americanism in the anti war movement. Will we see some people in the movement blaming ordinary American for Bush's imperial foreign policy. Will some elements support terrorist attacks on civilian US targets?

by Terry Wed Nov 03, 2004 18:24

SoCalDem has done a statistical analysis...

...on several swing states, and EVERY STATE that has EVoting but no paper trails has an unexplained advantage for Bush of around +5% when comparing exit polls to actual results.

In EVERY STATE that has paper audit trails on their EVoting, the exit poll results match the actual results reported within the margin of error.

So, we have MATCHING RESULTS for exit polls vs. voting with audits

vs.

A 5% unexplained advantage for Bush without audits.

For full report , see link

by Noel Wed Nov 03, 2004 18:27

Misty,

Please explain how anti-Americanism in the anti-war movement could get worse?

What are the anti-war movement going to do, declare war?

by redjade Wed Nov 03, 2004 18:27

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war42.html

by Rolf Wed Nov 03, 2004 18:28

Most definately - terrorists dont exist in a vaccum, like I said in the original post the Americans understand what they are up against and dont apologise for it.
If you state your position that you are under attack and your existence is threatened like never before - assymetrical warfare, terrorists using anything they can to destroy you without the immediate threat of retaliation and people dont understand or dont want to listen then what can you do?
Tell them in the State of the Union... address the UN... reelect the guy who GETS IT...done done and done - if the world still looks down its nose at you saying your stupid, you can tell them again and again and again but I still dont think they'll get it.
In the end you begin to think they dont really really care about your existence and your plight so you act unilaterally - (read independantly).

by Ruri Wed Nov 03, 2004 18:57

This is all baffling to us. However, we have to hope against hope that this guy will reward the endorsement of a beleaguered population with something resembling responsible leadership in his second term. Kerry did the right thing in conceding. This is democracy, like it or not and its the only viable system in the world today for all its flaws. The world needs a better America. Sadly we may have to wait a while for it yet. I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

by Ali H. Wed Nov 03, 2004 20:26

Oh yes let's pop the champagne corks. Osama's best recruiting sargeant gets another 4 years. Wait for the dirty bombs in London and Washington and we'll see who's celebrating then.

The interesting thing will be to see if the morons vote for Jeb Bush next time round, or if they'll have had a bellyfull of war by them.

A sad day for the US of A.

by Snake Eater Wed Nov 03, 2004 20:59

If you think looters actually ran off under the eyes of US troops with 760,000 lbs. of explosives stuffed in their pockets, you really need to consult with your psychologist. And you need to apologize to the troops you so blithely insulted in the name of hate.

by TheTroll Wed Nov 03, 2004 21:35

SO, if you are spreading democracy, you have a "birthright" of murderous theft???? How??? Commies had pretty much the same idea about communism. As long as they were spreading communism, they could invade thier neighbor's homeland. Your beliefs that Zionist invadors practicing democratic ways in thier bloodsoaked crusade, that the 4 generations of murderous thieving Zionists crusaders have a right to be murderous thieves of Palestinian lands is just crap, and totaly dependant on your prejudices, as is obviously also the case in the USA..

99% of the US voters voted for more Palestinian blood on thier hands by continueing to support the ZIonist's bloodsoaked crusade AND to continue giving OBL the supporters he wants but couldn't get complaining about American troops in Saudi. OBL might just actually hate the US because it is democratic, as whore politicians in BOTH parties clame. So what? OBL wasn't getting the support he craved by ranting about Americans in Saudi. He got all the people who were willing to die to get Americans out of Saudi, AND all the people who just hate the USA because it is democratic. But then he obviously saw a need to alter his rant to include sanctions on Iraq killing a million people AND the US's bloodsoaked support of the ZIonist's bloodsoaked crusade. And what do you know, he got many more followers that he couldn't get by ranting about Americans in Saudi. And the US voters GIVE OBL 99% AMerican support of the destruction of Palestinian lives and lifes, which is 1 of the rants OBL had used before to great success in obaining followers willing to die for thier cause (note, "thier cause", the cause they are willing to die for, which onviously wasn't American forces in Saudi or America being democratic or they would have joined up with OBL when he was ranting about US troops in saudi, but, as the election shows, 99% American support of the destruction of Palestinian/Muslim lives and lifes.

99% of the American voters chose to continue thier war agianst thier Palestinian neighbors. And OBL is going to use everything the US voters give him to find new followers.

And the Zionist Crusader State being democratic in thier murderous theft of Palestinian lands just showcases the sindicate of murderous theft that ALL ZIonists CHOOSE to support by being a part of. They just fight over how to be murderous thieves of Palestinian lands like Federalists and Democrats faught over how to steal native American lands 160 years ago, and then faught over by democrats and Republicans after the Federalist party shut down shop.

Democracy- odd, the first big example of democracy that the western powers showed/forced onto the Muslims was the Judeo-christian dominated 1947 UN's tyrany of the majority when they gave palestinian lands to ZIonist crusaders.

Slavery was once democraticly legal. Did that decision being democratic make slavery any less of a crime??? Britts democraticly chose to keep troops in Ireland. According to some people, the Brittish people's choice, somewhat resembling democracy, to occupy Ireland makes the occupation and all the destruction caused by it, OK, because it is democratic.

Democracy is majority rules. And doesn't change the ZIonist's crusade and the US support of the ZIonist's crusade into anything else but an offense, democraticly decided apon. America democraticly decided to continue to reload ZIonist crusader's guns as fast as the ZIonist crusaders can unload them into the Palestinians. If the American's decision to support the ZIonist's bloodsoaked crusade was made by a king rather than the people, it would still be a decision of offensive intent. Being a democratic (99%) decision by Americans doesn't alter the offensive nature of thier choice of supporting the Zionist's continuing, never ending, murderous theft of palestinian lands.

Democracy has beome your idol. You practice idolotry when you think that democraticly deciding to treat you neighbors as you would not have thm treating you means that your decision is not an offense. Commies also had thier idolotry in communism. "Communism good", so spreading communism means the people you kill to spread communism don't matter. Your idolotry keeps you from seeing the real world issues. Such as suggesting that the Zionist crusaders being democratic in thier murderous theft of Palestinian lands means that they are defending themselves and, your idol, democracy, when in fact, the ZIonists are still just murderous thieves of Palestinian lands, which remains the offense, even if the 4 generations of murderous thieving Zionist crusades are democratic in thier destruction of Palestinian lives and lifes.

by D. Pearson Wed Nov 03, 2004 22:00

Today is a sad, but not unforseen day for American Democracy. The future of our country is now back in the hands of the man that led us down so many wrong paths already. The vision Bush has of our country can be viewed as an empirical one, on so many levels. One only has to look beyond the mainstream shoved down your throat every day. Bush's motto has always been if you do not admit any wrongs, then they just didn't happen. Well, I guess Americans either agreed, just didn't care enough, or just aren't capable of getting their own sources, opinions, morals, values, and ideologies. Well, maybe when the young adults of today, that aren't already dodging bullets and bombs for our sorry a**es figure out that they might just be on their way to that very lovely place, there might be a change of heart, or at least an ability to admit a mistake.

by charlie smith Thu Nov 04, 2004 05:13 chas9198 at aol dot com 517-776-0987

did it ever occure to you that the exit poll data was flawed?

by American Citizen (now subject) Thu Nov 04, 2004 06:52

One of the reasons is that the US id divided along racial and religious lines. I am not talking about Prespiterians vs Catholics when I say religious lines. I am talking about non-religious people vs the Christian right. The Christian right, which is composed of a portion of Catholics, and other mainstream religious groups as well as waky fundamentalists supports any Republican predident, especially if he invoked the words "God" or "Jesus" in his speeches. They called out their people to vote in a block. meanwhile the rest of us were left with a choice between Bush the warmonger president and Kerry the uninspiring warmonger Senator. I know the rest of the world was hoping for us to get rid of Bush, but Kerry did not inspire the turnout. And actually, in some ways it is good that Bush is still in office. Military recruitment is way down, recruiters openly have told me that they were hoping Bush would loose. The US is becoming diplomatically isolated. It will be a lot harder for Bush to get Brazil & Colombia to agree to a trade agreement than it would be for a guy like Kerry. I feel that any President will take the country to war if there is the public will. Kerry would have inspired that will a little better than the trained chimp bush. That is not to say I am happy with 60 million of my fellow Americans voting (if the elections were not COMPLETELY rigged) for Bush. I am saying that the progressives in the US are still here, and actually speak for the majority of Americans even if most people who voted chose the dumber of two evils. I voted for Ralph Nader in a safe state.

by Noel Thu Nov 04, 2004 08:21

Get over it.
The majority decides, that's democracy.

Blaming the fundamentalist-born again-religious right is ignorance and snobbery.

The US is a religious country, more spiritual than Europe. If people of faith recognise a candidate with a moral compass which is based on the teachings of Christ, naturally they will vote for that candidate.

Kerry assumed his pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage stance would garner wider support.
His pro-gay marriage views actually alienated a wide section of the traditionally Democrat African -American community.

by Raging Capitalist Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:27

Rolf, in the very beggining of this thread, is assuming there is a threat, which was "neutralized" in afganistan. he he.

it's not quite clear if rolf is sitting on the fence and trying to educate us about what his fellow usa-ers think, or if he's writing his opinion. he says his just telling us why bush got re-elected, but i get a sense of justification, and he is spouting the same dangerous pack of lies..

i'm so tired of it all now, but as long as good ol' dubya keeps makin' that dollar drop i can consume more with my yoyos, i'm sooooooooooo happy.

could be a graph of bushs brainwaves or something.

US Dollar on election day. hey.. hey.

by james - anti-work. socialize,party Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:50

why is it that every time bush is in trouble in terms of public opinion uncle osama pops out a new video to remind everyone that hes still scary and may attack again at any time.I bet that guy is on a ranch in texas enjoying his retirement./

by Joe Thu Nov 04, 2004 15:09

A perspective from the US: After three years of hearing repeatedly that the president is a liar, a fascist, a racist, an idiot, an evil genius, an Israeli poodle, a saudi poodle, a cokehead, a religious zealot, and on and on and on... The American voting public simply stopped listening to the left. They saw it as extremism, and they rejected it the way any decent citizen would - they voted their disapproval of it.

Now the far to center-left will repeat their meme about the right being dividers.
Even from Democrats I hear the phrase "how dare they!" said quietly. That they were betrayed by the far left is no secret.

We all remember the hostility and abusiveness of the protests. The protest simply backfired.

by Democrat Thu Nov 04, 2004 16:04

Don't understand what you are trying to say.

It seems quite clear to me that the American people were open to change. This is probably the second closest American election in a hundred years. GW's previous run being the closest. You can't get a more polarised country than America at the moment. (Venezuela perhaps). Once again it was down to one state, although not as close as the last time. I'm still bothered by the machines that leave a paper trail.
Democrats in picking Kerry probably scored an own goal if anything. Bush was there for the taking.

by Lefty Thu Nov 04, 2004 16:08

Kerry was not a left winger by any stretch of the imagination. Going by your logic how was he defeated?

The fact is that Kerry lost because of his inability to mobilise the working class and most disillusioned people in the US. Kerry's program did not call for universal health care, increased welfare, jobs for all, withdrawal from Iraq. As a result people just stayed at home.

by query Thu Nov 04, 2004 17:37

anyone know how many votes he got and did it have any impact on the result? I dont know much about the US election system but it seems that people had a choice of either Bush or Kerry in most states, naider wasn't even on the ballot in most.

Its a bit like being stuck in Leitrim and having no real left alternative. Should people vote for the lesser evil? ie Labour rather than FF FG or should they vote SF or abstain because the left are not fielding a candidate?

by Voice of Reason Thu Nov 04, 2004 17:45

If Kerry did actually campaign as a leftist he would have had ZERO chance of winning.

Basically, if they want to get a elected they need a Clinton type character. A charismatic figure (from the South), who can mimic Republican ideas when he has too.

Not very principled but if you want to win...

by Number cruncher Thu Nov 04, 2004 17:54

396,652 votes for Nader

by FFFT Fri Nov 05, 2004 13:16

“If Kerry did actually campaign as a leftist he would have had ZERO chance of winning.

Basically, if they want to get a elected they need a Clinton type character. A charismatic figure (from the South), who can mimic Republican ideas when he has too”

Couldn’t agree more with ya ‘voice of reason’. The outcome is perhaps not as decisive for international affairs as it has been built up by many.
MOST Americans are ‘Patriotic’ and on some level share the aims of the neocons albeit not as overtly or as aggressively. This includes the majority of Democrats.

expect more policy aimed at 'full spectrum dominance'

Great link on the PNAC

by Bodhisattva Fri Nov 05, 2004 15:00 0439991 at student dot ul dot ie

Let's gat a few things clear about the neo-con's claims that they speak for America:
1. Most Americans are NOT Dick Cheney.
2. Most Americans, at different stages before the election, DISAPPROVED of Bush than approved.
3,. most Americans are in favour of a woman's right to choose.
4 Most Americans say they agree wIth the goals of the environmental movement(s).
5. Most Americans are in favour of unions than are not.
6. Most Americans support(overwhelmingly) the idea of universal healthcare, even if it would mean tax increases( the work of Satan, those tax hikes, remember?).
7. Most Americans do NOT believe that everyone should have the right to own assault weapons.
8. Most Americans support affirmative action
9. Most Americans do NOT bear a foamy-mouthed hatred of Europe, or of liberals, or of gays, or of poor people
10. Most Americans support legislation preventing discrimination against homosexuals,
And most Americans are in favour of either a legal union or marriage between same-sex couples.
All this came from polls and surveys from a wide variety of sources - USA Today, WSJ, Gallup, etc.
And I know, 51% of those who voted voted for the Smirk, but I'm just sayin, y'know?

by FFFT Fri Nov 05, 2004 15:53

I wouldn’t think that the neocons claim that they ‘speak for America’- in fact I don’t recall that ever been said.
They do however strive, consistently, to influence both public opinion and policy (often by the most Machiavellian means). This week’s result rightly illustrates how effective they have been at achieving this.
On the social agendas the truth is, even if one were to accept your uncollaborated claims, that the majority are liberal, there is still a significant of conservative opposition.
Bush incidentally is more than just a neocon he is also a Christian fundamentalist, as were many, but by no means all, who voted for him. (Some Libertarian Republicians are also liberal on social issues but still prefer Bush ecomonically etc.)

The point is that many Democrats regardless of their social issue stance (including the Kerry camp) are as concerned with U.S. hegemony as Bush et al and may differ only in methods and tactics. It would be extremely naïve to think otherwise.

by jeff Fri Nov 05, 2004 15:57

I'm so sad that I actually drank all the 80 quid I won from Mullhollkand bookies, the odds for Bush having been 8/11.

Anyway, we are either fucked or we'll go the way of Reagan-ie; the west won again the end justfies the means. Yay!

by Terry Fri Nov 05, 2004 19:30

Seems like there was plenty of voting fraud after all, particularly with the electronic voting machines.

Having said that, really there was little difference between the candiates, neither was going to pull out of Iraq anytime soon. Perhaps Kerry would have been slightly better for the environment in the US, but he would hardly throw away the gains made by Bush on behalf of those who really run the show behind the scenes

by Terry Fri Nov 05, 2004 19:36

In the story sourced at the URL below, it reports:

The hot story in the Blogosphere is that the "erroneous" exit polls that showed Kerry carrying Florida and Ohio (among other states) weren't erroneous at all - it was the numbers produced by paperless voting machines that were wrong, and Kerry actually won. As more and more analysis is done of what may (or may not) be the most massive election fraud in the history of the world, however, it's critical that we keep the largest issue at the forefront at all time: Why are We The People allowing private, for-profit corporations, answerable only to their officers and boards of directors, and loyal only to agendas and politicians that will enhance their profitability, to handle our votes?

See URL for full story.

But I stress again, Kerry getting in would have made little difference. All the same it is essential to uncover any fraud to just show how desperate the Bush cabal were for power and to expose the total deceit behind them and everything they represent.

by Bodhisattva Fri Nov 05, 2004 20:49 0439991 at STUDENT dot ul dot ie

It's true that the neo-cons don't explicitly make such claims. They do, however, portray their candidates(Reagan, Bush 43, etc.) and their agenda as representative of 'ordinary Americans'(whoever they are), asserting that liberalism is minoritarian, its torch-bearers as elitist and out of touch. I'm merely pointing out that, despite the strong core of evangelical/libertarian conservatives, there exists plenty of evidence that liberal America is more than a fringe, more than the tiny minority the Republicans suggest exists. Regarding the Democrats, it depends on whether you are referring to the party establishment or the grassroots. The latter(surveyed at the DNC in Boston) were overwhelmingly against the Iraq war, in favour of a more balanced approach to the Israeli/Palestinian question, and are generally more supportive of international law, the UN, the ICC, etc. Hardly reflective of the neo-con position on America's relationship with the world.
By the way, here is the evidence to support my earlier claims:
3: (57% believe abortion should be legal in all/nearly all cases) ABC/Washington Post Poll, January 21 2003
4: (83% agree...)Gallup News Service, April 18 2000
5: (58% think labour unions a good idea)Gallup News Poll, August 30 2002
6: (80% believe in universal healthcare provision; 52% willing to pay more in tax/insurance premium to achieve this goal)Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation Uninsured Survey May 16 2000
8: Gallup News Service, April 18 2000
10: LA Times poll June 18 2000, HRC Press Release on Gallup Poll, June 4 2001

by FFFT Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:56

Again you seem to miss my point. An American may be socially liberal and pro-trade union etc but may still be a hardliner on international affairs and every bit a parochial as any Republician. One does not exclude the other- nor incidentally are all social conservatives necessarily foreign policy hawks, the paleo-conservatives or paleo-cons a la Pat Buchanan spring to mind as a prime example of this.
Forget your ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ (to paraphrase an erstwhile U.S president)
and listen for a moment to the rhetoric of American public life. ‘Patriotism’ is a justification for all camps, indeed probably the most commonly used one. This isn’t just political- it’s cultural.
The reality is no matter what party may be in power the rest of the world is going to have to deal with a “patriotically”-minded hyperpower from here on in.

P.S. let’s not forget that the neocons have leftist then Democratic ideological roots and a residue of their thought runs through the Democratic camp as well.
Neo-conservativism is not synonymous with right -wing Republicians. The coterie of neocon think tanks, independent media outlets and organisations are much more ethereal than is often assumed and would continue to influence public opinion and policy during and after any electoral outcome.

by euro hero Mon Nov 08, 2004 00:36

they waited for kerry to save their ass, now they cash in while they can....

---
The dollar could slide still further, in spite of hitting an all-time low against the euro last week in the wake of George W. Bush's re-election, currency traders have said.

The dollar sell-off has resumed amid fears among traders that Mr Bush's victory will bring four more years of widening US budget and current account deficits, heightened geopolitical risks and a policy of "benign neglect" of the dollar.

--

However, the market has been rife with rumours that the latest wave of selling has been led by foreign governments seeking to cut their exposure to US assets.

India and Russia have reportedly been selling US assets, as well as petrodollar-rich Middle Eastern investors.

China, which has $515bn of reserves, was also said to be selling dollars and buying Asian currencies in readiness to switch the renminbi's dollar peg to a basket arrangement, something Chinese officials have increasingly hinted at. Any re-allocation could push the dollar sharply lower and Treasury yields markedly higher.

by R. Isible Mon Nov 08, 2004 06:03

There's also the theory that the Democratic Leadership Council (run by the right-wingers that control the Democratic party since the mid-eighties and counting among its luminaries: Clinton, Lieberman, Albright, Gore) is happy to see Bush in again so that Hilary Clinton gets a good shot at the Presidency in 2008.

Kerry was such a stinkingly bad candidate (pro NAFTA, PATRIOT USA Act, Iraq War, No Child Left Behind) that if he had got in it would have been a bonanza for big business served with a helping of smug liberal posturing about abortion.

The Dixiecrats are finished completely unless the "left" (including people like Chomsky that were idiotic enough to endorse voting (for Kerry) as a way of changing anything)) manages to keep its head pushed up its ass and continues to play the "voting" game.

by Voice of Reason Mon Nov 08, 2004 19:02

You still dont understand. Kerry didnt win. And Hilary Clinton certainly hasnt a chance. For a variety of reasons, one being that most Americans arent ready to elect a female president. Secondly, no matter how good at the job she would be, she doesnt have the right kind of charisma.

by R. Isible Mon Nov 08, 2004 19:56

1. I don't want H. Clinton to win
2. I think Kerry lost clearly

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're of the mistaken impression that the "left" sees Kerry/Clinton/Democrats as some sort of good thing?

If you are making that mistake then you should be aware that "left" != "liberal" != "Democrat"

My sincerest hope is that the Democrats implode and vanish from the American political scene and that all the political energy that they sucked up goes into creating a genuine opposition. If some new party wants to tag along on the backs of that I don't care as long as people don't waste time working for them and diverting their energies from real activity instead of the election charade.