NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/gao.propaganda.ap/index.html

It just keeps getting worse.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/gao.propaganda.ap/index.html

It just keeps getting worse.

You know what the best part is Gymoor?

The Democratic Party failed twice to convince the American public that their candidate was a better choice for President.

Makes you wonder why they keep ponying up people who come off even worse than Bush in the eyes of the public.

And I won't even get into the past nominations - like Mondale and Dukakis.

IIRC, Mondale suffered the most crushing loss in election history.

Y
The Democratic Party failed twice to convince the American public that their candidate was a better choice for President.
Wow, that is entirely irrelevant and inflammatory.


I know where the money should be recovered from: Bush and his cronies' pockets.

Wow, that is entirely irrelevant and inflammatory.
I know where the money should be recovered from: Bush and his cronies' pocket s.

Only because you wish it wasn't true.

You know what the best part is Gymoor?

The Democratic Party failed twice to convince the American public that their candidate was a better choice for President.

Makes you wonder why they keep ponying up people who come off even worse than Bush in the eyes of the public.

And I won't even get into the past nominations - like Mondale and Dukakis.

IIRC, Mondale suffered the most crushing loss in election history.

So...basically, you're saying, "Ha ha! My candidates are doing this, not yours!"

Only because you wish it wasn't true.
I am not going to engage in idealogical demgoguery with trolls.

So...basically, you're saying, "Ha ha! My candidates are doing this, not yours!"

No, I'm saying that despite the fact that Bush is constantly portrayed or viewed as a bumbling, corrupt fool, for some reason the Democrats couldn't pony up anyone who the public thought would be a better deal.

It's not like the jokes about Bush being stupid started yesterday. They started before Gore was running.

I thought for sure that after the first election, that Democrats would capitalize on outrage over the Florida snafu, but for some reason, that never materialized. And against Kerry, he scored a win.

So, I'm wondering. Bush this, Bush that. Corrupt this, corrupt that. Cronyism (and believe me, I've seen cronyism rampant in every administration since Carter). Yes, his poll numbers are low right now.

But poll numbers tend to vary widely, because the American public has a very, very short memory. They couldn't even remember to be mad about the Florida recount. And despite the Republican screw ups, most Americans, while they may not like Bush's performance, don't seem to be nearly as hung up on him as people were about a stain on a dress.

What you really need is for Bush to be involved in a sex scandal. Oh, and it's not like he's running for re-election.

You know what the best part is Gymoor?

The Democratic Party failed twice to convince the American public that their candidate was a better choice for President.

Makes you wonder why they keep ponying up people who come off even worse than Bush in the eyes of the public.

And I won't even get into the past nominations - like Mondale and Dukakis.

IIRC, Mondale suffered the most crushing loss in election history.


Translation: Change the subject......

Mondale suffered the most crushing loss in election history.

Yeah ... but, to be fair, against Reagan. The Dems could have run Jesus himself in 1984 and it still would have been a spectacular defeat.

Yeah ... but, to be fair, against Reagan. The Dems could have run Jesus himself in 1984 and it still would have been a spectacular defeat.

The reason that Gymoor and others bring up "Another Domino" in the panoply of Bush screwups is that they want him to fail.

Of course, he's already a lame duck President, but that doesn't matter to them.

Kinda like the Clinton days, when Republicans kept bringing up Clinton screwups (some of them were funny, though, you have to admit).

Both parties, rather than coming forward with better ideas, spend 99 percent of their effort and windbagginess on "look how much the other guy screwed up".

Sad, really. The Democrats are now wearing the tinfoil hats most recently used by Republicans.

News flash: all politics are dirty, filthy, and corrupt.

No, I'm saying that despite the fact that Bush is constantly portrayed or viewed as a bumbling, corrupt fool, for some reason the Democrats couldn't pony up anyone who the public thought would be a better deal.

It's not like the jokes about Bush being stupid started yesterday. They started before Gore was running.

I thought for sure that after the first election, that Democrats would capitalize on outrage over the Florida snafu, but for some reason, that never materialized. And against Kerry, he scored a win.

So, I'm wondering. Bush this, Bush that. Corrupt this, corrupt that. Cronyism (and believe me, I've seen cronyism rampant in every administration since Carter). Yes, his poll numbers are low right now.

But poll numbers tend to vary widely, because the American public has a very, very short memory. They couldn't even remember to be mad about the Florida recount. And despite the Republican screw ups, most Americans, while they may not like Bush's performance, don't seem to be nearly as hung up on him as people were about a stain on a dress.

What you really need is for Bush to be involved in a sex scandal. Oh, and it's not like he's running for re-election.

Granted.

However, shouldn't you be more concerned that both camps are arguing over mediocrity?

It is rather amusing that people get upset about arguing which idiot is smarter then the other idiot.

Granted.

However, shouldn't you be more concerned that both camps are arguing over mediocrity?

It is rather amusing that people get upset about arguing which idiot is smarter then the other idiot.

I've made the observation before that if Bush, Kerry, and Tony Blair were in a simple debate, Blair would wipe the floor with them. Easily. And in a most humiliating fashion.

And Blair is by no means the best that the UK has to offer.

I believe that US political parties offer us the worst they can find. And I believe that in both of the most recent elections, the American public chose Bush as the lesser of two evils. And the second time around by a larger margin than the first.

I think that until both parties start offering better candidates, with more sound political philosophies, it doesn't really matter a damn who the President is.

After all, the last time around, our choice was between two frat boys from Skull and Bones who happen to be shameless self-promoters.

I've made the observation before that if Bush, Kerry, and Tony Blair were in a simple debate, Blair would wipe the floor with them. Easily. And in a most humiliating fashion.

And Blair is by no means the best that the UK has to offer.

I believe that US political parties offer us the worst they can find. And I believe that in both of the most recent elections, the American public chose Bush as the lesser of two evils. And the second time around by a larger margin than the first.

I think that until both parties start offering better candidates, with more sound political philosophies, it doesn't really matter a damn who the President is.

After all, the last time around, our choice was between two frat boys from Skull and Bones who happen to be shameless self-promoters.

No matter who, all politicians are shameless self-promoters by definition. Other than that, I can finally agree with you wholeheartedly...except I do place a little bit of importance on who the President is.

Oh, and the first time around, "the american people" did not choose Bush. Outside of any allegations of conspiracy, Bush was chosen by the Electoral College, but not by the popular vote. Therefore he was elected by rule of law not by a mandate from the people, which you claim.

Blair would indeed wipe the floor with Bush, Kerry or most any other US politician on the national scene. I wish the US would adopt something like the constant questioning the English PM undergoes. I tune in all the time to Parliament grilling him. It is entertaining, transparent and informative. Mistakes, equivocations and subject changes are absolutely pounced on with glee. Good stuff, and my country lacks that institutionalized questioning of authority at it's own peril.

I also think that our American campaigns should resemble more of a grueling marathon a gloves-off debate with multiple parties invited. I want to see someone get attacked with a shoe.

God is the most powerful rhetorical tool ever.

Bush is a prime example of this. Because he came off as a more devout Christian than Kerry or Gore( neither of which drew much attention to their personal faith at all.) working class people were more than willing to overlook the facts that he's outrageously corrupt, and is only really concerned about white collar America.

The other factor is that both Kerry and Gore were intellectual people who came off as stuffed shirts. American voters didn't like that.

Regardless of which party wins in 2008, I'm be glad, because I'm fairly sure NO one could beat this administration in ineptitude.

You know what the best part is Gymoor?

The Democratic Party failed twice to convince the American public that their candidate was a better choice for President.

Which of course had nothing to do with the massive smear campaigning that occured.

"Swift Vets" anyone?

I've made the observation before that if Bush, Kerry, and Tony Blair were in a simple debate, Blair would wipe the floor with them. Easily. And in a most humiliating fashion. British politics places heavy emphasis on debating skills. Which is not necessarily abad thing either. I've seen Blair take on some of his rivals; it is always entertaining at the very least.


I think that until both parties start offering better candidates, with more sound political philosophies, it doesn't really matter a damn who the President is. True, though some unsound philosophies can be worse than others. Both parties really need to get back into shape.

After all, the last time around, our choice was between two frat boys from Skull and Bones who happen to be shameless self-promoters. Truer words have never been spoken.

Originally posted by: Sierra B THP

News flash: all politics are dirty filthy and corrupt.


Im assuming you meant to post politicians, and frankly the post is nuts; I know a lot of politicians who are very pious human beings.

Don't make blanket statements. nine times out of ten, they're never correct

The reason that Gymoor and others bring up "Another Domino" in the panoply of Bush screwups is that they want him to fail.

Of course, he's already a lame duck President, but that doesn't matter to them.

Kinda like the Clinton days, when Republicans kept bringing up Clinton screwups (some of them were funny, though, you have to admit).

Both parties, rather than coming forward with better ideas, spend 99 percent of their effort and windbagginess on "look how much the other guy screwed up".

Sad, really. The Democrats are now wearing the tinfoil hats most recently used by Republicans.

News flash: all politics are dirty, filthy, and corrupt.
We don't have to want him to fail. He already does it, daily, spectacularly, in everything he does. What we want is apologists (those who are out there) to stop claiming that his failures are really successes.

Other than that little detail, I agree with your post. :)

No, I'm saying that despite the fact that Bush is constantly portrayed or viewed as a bumbling, corrupt fool, for some reason the Democrats couldn't pony up anyone who the public thought would be a better deal.

It's not like the jokes about Bush being stupid started yesterday. They started before Gore was running.

Because while Bush may be a bumbling buffoon, people pulling his strings aren't. More and more I begin to wonder in Bush isn't the distraction that we're all supposed to be in shock over and not notice the stuff that's going on behind the scenes. Perhaps I'm sliding into tin-foil-hat-ism. Still, I can't escape the fact that while my attention is on Bush, the trick is happening elsewhere.


I thought for sure that after the first election, that Democrats would capitalize on outrage over the Florida snafu, but for some reason, that never materialized. And against Kerry, he scored a win.

One word. Scalia. Swimingpool, in another thread, was asking what was so important about SCOTUS. Well, here's the best possible answer. They appointed Bush President back in 2000 so any capitalization by the dems would come with a serious destabalization of government.

As for Kerry, Bush won by such a narrow margin that it was more people not wanting to change horses midstream (meaning mid Iraq conflict) rather than a true mandate for leadership.


So, I'm wondering. Bush this, Bush that. Corrupt this, corrupt that. Cronyism (and believe me, I've seen cronyism rampant in every administration since Carter).

Not this rampant and not this blatant. Furthermore, and I know this is going to get me flamed, it was not nearly this bad under Clinton. It still existed, but it was not as contemptable because the people at least vaguely had the skills for the appointment they received. It didn't look (or work) so much like looting.


But poll numbers tend to vary widely, because the American public has a very, very short memory. They couldn't even remember to be mad about the Florida recount. And despite the Republican screw ups, most Americans, while they may not like Bush's performance, don't seem to be nearly as hung up on him as people were about a stain on a dress.

So, basically, you're saying the Republicans are better at manipulating the sheeple present in US society? Okay, I'll agree with you on that.

Furthermore, they might be starting to get hung-up on him. Remember, people weren't hung up on a dress until the last couple of years of the Clinton presidency when it was shoved down our throats every waking second of every day. We may be seeing the tide start to turn and, satisfyingly enough, on something more substantive than "Spit or Swallow."


What you really need is for Bush to be involved in a sex scandal. Oh, and it's not like he's running for re-election.

Neither was Clinton...

I happen to think there are many politicians who are actually NOT corrupt, despite the previous statement by Sierra. A prime example would be a Democratic Senator of Illinois named Barack Obama, who will probably not run for the nomination of presidential candidate in '08 despite his potential.

Because while Bush may be a bumbling buffoon, people pulling his strings aren't. More and more I begin to wonder in Bush isn't the distraction that we're all supposed to be in shock over and not notice the stuff that's going on behind the scenes. Perhaps I'm sliding into tin-foil-hat-ism. Still, I can't escape the fact that while my attention is on Bush, the trick is happening elsewhere.



One word. Scalia. Swimingpool, in another thread, was asking what was so important about SCOTUS. Well, here's the best possible answer. They appointed Bush President back in 2000 so any capitalization by the dems would come with a serious destabalization of government.

As for Kerry, Bush won by such a narrow margin that it was more people not wanting to change horses midstream (meaning mid Iraq conflict) rather than a true mandate for leadership.



Not this rampant and not this blatant. Furthermore, and I know this is going to get me flamed, it was not nearly this bad under Clinton. It still existed, but it was not as contemptable because the people at least vaguely had the skills for the appointment they received. It didn't look (or work) so much like looting.



So, basically, you're saying the Republican's are better at manipulating the sheeple present in US society? Okay, I'll agree with you on that. Hope they find it still satisfying in Hell.

Furthermore, they might indeed be hung-up on him, because people weren't hung up on a dress until the last couple of years of the Clinton presidency. We may be seeing the tide start to turn and on something more substantive than "Spit or Swallow."



Neither was Clinton...
Well said.

Don't worry, you're not the crazy one here. Tin foil headwear will soon be tout le rage, if only to protect us from the polluted, ozone-less atmosphere (courtesy of the neo-cons). I agreed with Sierra's remark about all politics being dirty because, in part, all the presidents for the last 100 years at least have been little more than mouthpieces for private interest groups. The only thing different about Bush is this weird, adoring cult that's grown up around him. It was okay to tell the truth about other presidents, but not this one for some reason.

(sheeple -- I like that. :) )

How sad is it that now the best defence put forward is 'Ah, fuck it. He got elected, anything goes?'

Anyhow, on topic of the propoganda: So, somebody finally got caught using tax dollars! Yay! I bet it happens more frequently than I would like to think, in one of my economic books had a fact that the government often "misplaces" some five million dollars and can't find it, even after the private commities look for it. No, can't quote it, as I'm currently across the planet.

Back off-topic: So, the Republican's can beat the Dems twice in a row, but what about three? Can somebody say: Roosevelt? Yeah, the Republican's only claim to fame is having a semi-hereditary democracy, soon to be challenged by Lor...er "Senator" Hilary Clinton.

And about Bush "beating" Gore, yea...we won't get into that. Was that even a popular majority win? I don't think so.

Kerry on the other hand did say: "I'm Catholic! I'm religious, I have a relationship with God!" But he never said Jesus or the all important "personal relationship." He was also bound to lose due to Rove's quick idea of labeling him as a flip-flopper in the public eye long before he could shed the idea. And most people view N.E. with suspision where I live, so I think Gore would have had a better chance if he didn't have the Botox face, or even John Edwards.

Such is the state of US politics.... :rolleyes: