How does this affect Kerry's standing with the anti-war crowd?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As I've never felt that the Iraq war is even on the list of the top five most important issues for this election, I'm not particularly interested in Kerry's position on the war. His positions on the environment, the economy, and other far more vital topics differ sufficiently from Bush's platform, which is really all that matters.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That's an interesting take on the subject, Tom.
Why do you feel that the war in Iraq is not a vital topic for the election?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The way this race is shaping up, I feel like the candidates are preparing to make domestic economic policy the big issue. Their foreign policy is so similar as to be just different brands of the vanilla ice cream, and neither one is talking much about social issues.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Why do you feel that the war in Iraq is not a vital topic for the election?"
Because it's a distraction. The war in Iraq is not particularly relevant to our "war on terror," and even our problems with terrorists pale in comparison to the many more serious issues -- even ones that regularly cause more death -- that we could be addressing.
While the successful administration of the reconstruction of Iraq is, of course, one of our primary foreign policy objectives, it's worth remembering that it is, at best, merely a foreign policy objective.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Their foreign policy is so similar as to be just different brands of the vanilla ice cream.
Kerry merely stated that he stands by his vote that gave president Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq. This does not mean Kerry and Bush have the same foreign policy.
Kerry, like most Americans, believed president Bush's claim that Iraq's WMDs were a immediate threat to our national security.
To find the difference between Kerry and Bush, you have to ask this question: If Kerry were president, would he manipulate intelligence to garner support for the Iraq occupation?
[ August 10, 2004, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
A President's job doesn't begin and end with wars. The tone of the executive office has more far-reaching effects.
But even with security in general, I imagine that with either administration, I have a higher chance of being injured on my bike than I do with a terrorist attack. At least Kerry is trying to do something about my insurance premiums.
Just as Rumsfeld sets the environment in the Pentagon which led to Abu Graib. Bush sets a tone which manifests in the day-to-day policies and interactions of a large swath of people in the nation, and abroad, and I don't like that tone. I don't like his priorities, and I don't like how they manifest in America. Talk about healthcare, talk about the deficit, talk about obligations to the states and counties. The job of the President is much larger than starting and ending wars, just as the job of a teacher is more than expelling the bad kids. He likes to call himself a War President, I'd rather have a healthcare, education, jobs, democracy, and an American President.
[ August 10, 2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Well said Beren.
I would add that a fundamental question that we should all be asking is if we believe that either Bush or Kerry is willing to "manipulate" the facts to forward their respective agenda. I propose that the answer is yes. I think that it is an ugly fact about nature of US politics.
The cynic in me believes that all you get to choose is which agendas you want supported. You're not going to get the straight scoop, regardless of who is at the top.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Consider: Nader is anti-war; yet there is no chance whatsoever that he will be elected. So any vote for Nader isn't even a protest vote: it's just a way of saying "I do not disapprove of Dubya's handling of the Iraq situation." Similarly, any vote for a candidate who cannot win is a vote to maintain the status quo. And any decision to not vote is a vote in favor of policies as they now stand.
So it's not that the war isn't a vital topic, but rather that voting based on pro vs anti is too simplistic. When the US is already engaged in Iraq, the question for an anti-war voter is "Who will provide the best leadership for constructive disengagement with Iraq?"
[ August 10, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So any vote for Nader isn't even a protest vote: it's just a way of saying "I do not disapprove of Dubya's handling of the Iraq situation."
I don't think we get to tell other citizens what their votes really mean, at least not do that and be taken seriously.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Tell that to the Supreme Court. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pff. The Supreme Court said that if you can't vote competently, your vote ain't gonna be counted Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I think that's what the Democrats told Nader supporters after the election. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I wasn't addressing what voters think their votes and non-votes mean, Rakeesh, but rather the effect of that vote or non-vote.
[ August 10, 2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
To me one of the least important issues in a presidential election is the economy. I just don't believe that the president has any significant direct affect on it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well, considering that your candidate Dubya and your party Republican have managed to screw up the economy nearly beyond belief, it is best that you spread that bit of disinformation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The econmomy is screwed up beyond belief?
Can you justify that statement?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, clearly it's beyond YOUR belief. Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
MPH,
I think that the administration as a whole has a great deal of influence on the economy. In my mind, though, it is very difficult to draw distinct cause and effect between a particular administration and economic prosperity because the trends usually last longer than the administrations.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I thought even conservatives agree that Bush's defecit spending has negative effects on the economy. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Okay, it's not even screwed up in a historical sense-- unless you count 'Frittered-the-surplus-away' as being screwed up beyond belief.
There are no lines for gas; we are not in a depression; the job market is growing ("SOFT SPOT!" screameth Alan Greenspan).
I can think of LOTS of indicators that the economy isn't screwed up beyond belief.
But I'll grant aspectre his hyperbolic little toys. Heaven knows we all need our little entertainments.
BTW: I'm a fiscal liberal. I'm for increasing taxes to pay for schools in Iraq, for example.
[ August 10, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's a matter of degrees and directions. Bush is steering a large boat, and his administration has managed to turn the United States in a shameful direction. Ashcroft hasn't erroded all liberties, but he hasn't promoted many. Bush's approach to foreign policy hasn't alienated us from the world, but it did drain the surplus of goodwill we had, just as his economic policy drained the surplus. And his approach to conflict does narrow and degrade our spirit, even though it can't destroy it. Not in 4 years. In eight, I think he could do some damage, if we continue in this direction. This isn't some critical election that's a battle for the nation's salvation, but this is an election that decides what kind of values we promote. Do we promote open government? Do we promote sustainable energy policy, or the quick fix? Is this nation about building internal integrity, or is it about waging a wars?
[ August 10, 2004, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
from what I have seen, Kerry does not really have a position on the war or on rebuilding Iraq. He really has more of an anti-position...he just says "Bush did it wrong, I would do things differently" without telling us HOW he would accomplish it. He will sometimes mention other countries helping...but does not really say how he would get them to help. Many of the countries had tight financial ties to Saddam...and I really don't see how anyone could have convinced them to go against their pocket book no matter what Saddam did, or what the USA president said.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I see different pros and cons for both candidates:
Bush: Without reelection to worry about, Bush can make decisions based on what he thinks is right, instead of what is popular. I think the plurality of Americans want us out of Iraq as soon as possible. However, a hasty retreat might not be the best answer. Bush's single-minded crusade mentality might be exactly what we need.
Kerry: The man is a clean slate, which is the closest thing America has to credibility these days. Bush stepped on a lot of toes in the past four years. We might get more international cooperation and sympathy with Kerry as our president. In a way, voting out Bush is our collectively way or saying, sorry about that whole WMD thing.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)