NationStates Jolt Archive

It's the top entry at www.maxbarry.com, check it out.


A highlight:

in August this year, US President George W. Bush said as much:

"I don't think you can win [a war on terrorism]. But I think you can create conditions so that... those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

This is one of the smartest things Bush has ever said about terrorism, but from a marketing perspective, it was a tremendous blunder. Indeed, his political opponents John Kerry and John Edwards eagerly seized on this piece of insight, and counter-attacked with statements of piercing dumbness:

"This is no time to declare defeat, the War on Terrorism is absolutely winnable."

It took less than 24 hours for Bush to withdraw (actually, "clarify") his earlier comment and replace it with a stupid, more marketable one:

"In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table, but make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win."

I think he makes a valid point.

You've actually touched on a couple of issues, one is the fact that even though the American public is notorious for it's short memory, it hasn't totlly forgot Vietnam and to admit he's draw us into a war that's 'unwinnable' would be political suicide for Bush. America want's swift asskickings like Genada or Desert Storm. Bush is still trying to sell the idea that this is one of them. The other is the dumbing down of American politics to the lowest common denominator. Sadly you can win a landslide in America by appealing to the less educated with sound bites and 'talking points'. You have to reduce even the most complicated issue to less than 30 seconds or you lose your audience in America. They want the highlights not the meat, so you tell them what you want them to hear in a memorable sound bite and let them get back to their MTV, that's the way modern elections are won.

Max Barry is right. And so is Bush:
"I don't think you can win [a war on terrorism]. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
It frustrates me that Bush says things like this that are so right, and then proceeds to do exactly the opposite of them! Although democracy in Iraq would be conditions to make terror less acceptable, the process of invading Iraq was so incendiary to Arabs that terrorism has only risen.

Bush is incredible correct on this and I am amazed.

However, starting a war is not a good way to create these conditions, I may be wrong though. I'm sure Iakeokeo will point out my stupidity.

Hm, mabye all the dumb shit he says is stuff given to him from his advisors, or aides, or whatever the hell you call 'em.....Mabye he actually has some good sense, but is obeyin his "whatever the hell you call 'ems"

Interestingly enough (I couldn't find the article, it's either on Factcheck.org or spinsanity.com) when Kerry said more or less the same thing later (nusance), the same thing happened. What indeed we might be seeing is the gooey center, these are rational at least at thier heart well meaning people stuck somewhere in between the giant gears of the mechanism neccisary to bring them to this point in thier lives. With no Karl Roves, no James Carvells, no Limbaughs, no Moores-if we had investigative journalism rather than yellow journalism, would we have a different kind of government? You are never conditioned to think you are conditioned, you are conditioned to think the conditioning is natural.

At the same time, would we suffer without someone to argue one point of view over the other? As long is it came equally from both sides?

I don't believe what we have works, and I think we might be reaching a deteriation point. An interesting and frightening thing Zogby said on The Daily Show regarded how many on either side of the fence would not be willing to accept the legitamecy of the other candidate should they win. No matter what happens I think the next four years are going to be rough, and maybe beyond...

what you say is totally true!

Of coarse he has "aides" and "handlers" to tell him what to say. This is obvious because all the times when there wasn't an aide to help him, he completely screwed up. Just the other day he was talking about "...rumours on the internets..." Probably the reason he stuttered and stubbled so much though the debates is the reicieving end of his earpeice was late. ^__~
(no, i'm not funny enough make that up, i think i got it from the Daily Show)

The candidates use focus groups to find out exactly what word to use where for maximum effect. Both the main candidates are completely plastic with most of their speeches.

Sadly you can win a landslide in America by appealing to the less educated with sound bites and 'talking points'. You have to reduce even the most complicated issue to less than 30 seconds or you lose your audience in America.

Aye. God forbid we have to think critically about a complex issue and come up with a reasonable stance on it. God forbid we vote for a President who's smarter than us. God forbid we have to get off our lazy asses and actually do something to effect positive change rather than expecting it to be delivered to us because we think we deserve it. God forbid we not believe whatever our parents, friends, and religion tell us and actually find out for ourselves. We're Americans, dammit. We are perfect just the way we are. Just because we're willfully ignorant, woefully inadequate, and still manage to think we're the best thing since sliced bread...that doesn't mean we don't deserve the best.