quote: But the President needs to remember in the future debates that he is not talking to or with John Kerry. He's talking to us. We aren't his enemies. All we need is reassurance that we have a calm and wise and decent man at the helm.
quote: So what if President Bush got angry? Wouldn't you, to hear a man like Kerry stand up and pontificate and judge, when Kerry knows less than nothing and is, in fact, deeply stupid about foreign relations and military affairs?
Bush
quote:we have a calm and wise and decent man at the helm.
quote:when Kerry knows less than nothing and is, in fact, deeply stupid about foreign relations and military affairs
Kerry knows less than nothing and Bush is wise?
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why I have Stopped Reading Those- Somehow... that doesn't seem right... Perhaps I am ignorant, but hasn't Bush alienated quite a few countries? And also... *Trails off* That just... doesn't make sense. *finishes lamely*
Given that we've been trying very hard to NOT have political threads full of gratuitous over-simplifications here at Hatrack, I think it's probably important to either quote our host in context (so the criticism of Kerry is placed in a light that meets our agreed-upon "standards") or leave that stuff for a different place.
Sorry to be critical, but I thought we were doing very well lately by not having posts of vitriol, hyperbole, or unsupported opinion related to the upcoming election.
I assume that if OSC wanted that one posted here, he'd've done it.
If you care to discuss it, I think we owe him at least the courtesy to link to the full article.
Tearing into two isolated quotes would seem to be in poor taste, at any rate.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why you decide this is a given [i]Given that we've been trying very hard to NOT have political threads full of gratuitous over-simplifications here at Hatrack[i].
Personally, I find the mud-slinging, hyper-charged arguements a tad more amusing ^^.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, by linking the whole article I might have to read it which will stress me out more than trying to read a whole page of Russian, German or Japanese.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's understandable that President Bush got angry. Remember the vile and terrible things that Kerry and his buddies in Hollywood and the Senate have been saying about President Bush. The lies have been outrageous, and the media, which would have refuted any anti-Kerry lies they could, have been supporting or at least ignoring the false statements about President Bush.
It's not paranoid to think you're surrounded by enemies when, in fact, you are.
But the President needs to remember in the future debates that he is not talking to or with John Kerry. He's talking to us. We aren't his enemies. All we need is reassurance that we have a calm and wise and decent man at the helm.
quote:So what if the Iraq war was "the wrong war at the wrong time"? Even if Kerry were right about that, we are in that war. And Kerry's track record and current statements show that as commander-in-chief, he would treat our own military with contempt as he made his decisions.
In other words, the military leadership would know that regardless of the information they gave him, he would not act upon their assessments, but rather would make decisions based on our enemies' assessments of the battlefield situation.
It is hard to keep military morale up in a situation like that. And the military would soon recognize that the only thing they could do to support their troops would be to keep them out of harm's way as much as possible, because they could not and would not be effectively used to achieve reasonable objectives.
John Kerry is and always has been the enemy of the U.S. military. He got out of his duty as quickly as possible; he slandered his fellow soldiers when he returned from Vietnam; he voted against every weapons system that is now making our military irresistible on the field of battle; and he believes our enemies more than he believes our own sources of information.
That's what the debate showed -- as if we needed to be shown it again.
So what if President Bush got angry? Wouldn't you, to hear a man like Kerry stand up and pontificate and judge, when Kerry knows less than nothing and is, in fact, deeply stupid about foreign relations and military affairs?
Soldiers will do their duty in the face of danger and death, provided that they have confidence that their sacrifice will accomplish a good purpose for the nation that they serve.
Right now, our military knows they have a commander-in-chief who will not spend their lives in vain. They can't campaign for him. They can't even say out loud (and have not said to me) how much they dread a Kerry presidency.
But if you really support our troops, you won't saddle them with Kerry. Even if you think Bush was wrong to go into Iraq, you can count on his doing what it takes to achieve the good goals of that campaign, and to continue prosecuting the war on terror.
posted
I think it is rather safe to say that Dubya does consider the public to be his enemies. That's why he won't speak to us via press conferences; and why he won't listen to us, carefully screens who is allowed into his public meetings.
posted
That...is the reason... Why I don't read those articles any more! Because of... *silences myself*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry has, in fact, said some things that would make me cringe if I were in the military. I am not. And I happen to agree with him on the war in Iraq.
I also agree with OSC, however, when he says that the fact is we are in the war, whether we like it or not.
And a smart person would talk about winning that war if he wants to be President. Because that is our only option now. We MUST finish the job there because to fail to do so now would leave Iraq in such a mess that it would become the terrorist breeding ground that Bush thought it was when he attacked.
It would be a disaster of a scale that would be terrible for the US and the Middle East, not to mention the folks in Iraq who truly want to live in peace and self-determination.
(whether that means democracy or not, by the way).
I think that in spots OSC's rhetoric (calling Kerry stupid and saying that he knows less than nothing) is ineffective. It would only appeal to people who have already made up their minds that they distrust Kerry deeply. To anyone else (presumably those OSC is hoping to convince) I imagine it would just be off-putting.
I also think that many people in the intended audience for this essay are likely to be turned off by the claims that "if the lies were being said about Kerry, the media would..." Frankly, the lies are, well... lying a bit thick on the ground surrounding both candidates' campaigns these days. And the media is not appearing all that biased. They are failing to do much of anything useful, IMHO.
The best we have lately is a couple of websites and a post-debate column in some of the news papers that does a bit of fact-checking/correction. And even that stuff has to be sifted.
I have one other question to ask Mr. Bush. For those soldiers who believe he lied about WMD and the reasons for going into Iraq (assuming there must be at least SOME of them...) what answers does he have regarding the need and value of their sacrifices?
Personally, if I were POTUS, the thought that my decisions might cost the lives of US soldiers and innocent civilians would give me enough pause to make sure of my facts before I launched a pre-emptive strike. Even against a totally insane and dangerous man like Saddam Hussein.
I might still do it, but when I did, I would explain that I decided to do so because of the danger the man posed, my belief in his capabilities to do harm and sponsor destruction, and my firm belief that his people were worthy of liberation. And I would try harder to convince a broader base of allies that our doing so was necessary. But then I'd do what I thought was right.
I think Bush fell short of what I would do as President. Or rather, of what I think a President of the United States should have done.
And because of that, I don't care that we still have to fight the war in Iraq. I want him out, in part, because his actions speak of a rush to judgement that is not in keeping with my hopes for a leader of this country.
I fear he'd do it again.
And get us into more stuff that ties our hands.
Ah well.
Thanks for posting the full context.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Growls* Did I continue my sentense? No... I showed remarkable restraint... I could just go on and on about why that little article snippet annoys me, but I have got to try to be... polite....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you showed amazing restraint Syn. I tend to distance myself and joke around when something really angers me. That's why I must thank Bob for doing such an excellent job of expressing what I'd really like to say about this article.
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I like some of OSC's columns. But I usually skip the ones that use "sneer" in it.
This one must set a record -- the first sentence starts out, "Leonard Pitts, Jr.'s, column in the Monday News & Record sneeringly asserted..."
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that in spots OSC's rhetoric (calling Kerry stupid and saying that he knows less than nothing) is ineffective. It would only appeal to people who have already made up their minds that they distrust Kerry deeply. To anyone else (presumably those OSC is hoping to convince) I imagine it would just be off-putting.
I pretty sure OSC isn't writing to persuade anyone. There are different motives for employing arguments. Persuasion of the undecided or even people who hold a different view is definitely one goal. Another goal, which I think is closer to OSC's purpose, is to deepen the commitment and quite possibly inflame the passions of the people who agree with you.
This is the thing that I think bothers me so much about OSC's writing. He is conciously engaging in demogougery. I think he is trying to circumvent people's rational decision making and influence them to see people as things.
If I had to pick one person form his writing that I think he is most resembling right now, I'd say that it was Grego. This makes me sad, but somehow I think I'll get over it.
edit: And the thing that really gets me, not so much with OSC who is, let's be honest, strictly small potatoes, but with the maninstream John Kerry critics is that they are not focusing on the areas that I think are his weak spots. I am extremely dubious about his economic plans and his military plans for Iraq. I don't have a lot of confidence that his "plans" have a good grounding in reality.
Calling him stupid or a wussy or a traitor or whatever may help you with the bigots and simplicity seekers on your side and help you hide the weakness of your guy by provoking similarly crude attacks from the opposition, but they don't do a thing for me.
posted
Yes, I just get annoyed at his repeated insistence that he's a Democrat in that column-- always employed right before he begins the Democrat bashing.
I don't support either candidate. I live in a heavily Bush-committed state (TX), so I can vote for whomever I wish, and it won't make any difference. But I get bugged when people do stuff like this. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC can call himself the Queen of the Mississipi clog dancers for all I care. I think that's a pretty inconsequential criticism. Saying that he can't be a Democrat because he is constantly bashes Democrats is playing teams, not focusing on what is important, like his demogougery or his sometiems tenuous grasp of the facts of what he's talking about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's understandable that President Bush got angry. Remember the vile and terrible things that Kerry and his buddies in Hollywood and the Senate have been saying about President Bush.
Come on. Why does OSC keep harping on this? Whoopi Goldberg made sex jokes about Bush's name and let loose verbally how much she disliked him.
Is this unamerican?
Has OSC never heard of Whoopi Goldberg before?
How about George Carlin, he's been dogging the Bushes since the daddy, he's been slamming them for over ten years. Does this make George Carlin, one of the smartest and funniest comedians ever born, a totally wrong unamerican man?
Is this the best he's got?
Oh. No. Kerry has a bunch of people in Hollywood who support him and really don't like Bush.
It amazes me that the Right loves to bash Hollywood over and over again, yet they all line up like whores in front of every Hollywood camera that rolls their way.
Ronald Reagen and Arnold the Terminator are both HOLLYWOOD BOYS. Hello?
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like OSC is watching only Republican attack ads, not the war. If he's going to argue for Bush, he should at least give a REAL argument, rather than making negative stuff up about Kerry, or resorting to arguments that make little-to-no sense. I mean, calling Kerry the "enemy" of our military? That's clearly false. As is the claim that his comments on Iraq imply he has "contempt" for the military. As is the claim that he, a man who worked for years in congress on foreign issues, knows less than nothing about foreign affairs. As is the claim that our soldiers want their president to lie to them about the value of their efforts. These are the sorts of arguments that you'd have to either be a pro-Bush extremist or not paying much attention to buy. Why is OSC using them?
It's shameful to have the political process degenerate into this. Even if it will get the anti-Kerry crowd charged up, it's still downright uncivic. When political discussion reverts into slander and falsities, it makes a good political decision nearly impossible. If this is how "ornery" Americans approach politics, then it should be no suprise that so many are disillusioned with politics and so many terrible candidates get elected.
quote:I also agree with OSC, however, when he says that the fact is we are in the war, whether we like it or not.
And a smart person would talk about winning that war if he wants to be President.
Yes, but in the debates and elsewhere Kerry has stated both of these claims himself! It's only the Republicans that have been saying Kerry wants to leave the war, or doesn't want to talk about how to win it. Kerry has consistently maintained we must win the war, and has consistently tried to offer plans.
quote:I pretty sure OSC isn't writing to persuade anyone. There are different motives for employing arguments. Persuasion of the undecided or even people who hold a different view is definitely one goal. Another goal, which I think is closer to OSC's purpose, is to deepen the commitment and quite possibly inflame the passions of the people who agree with you.
Yeah, that's my conclusion as well. I'm not happy about it.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rhetoricians called it 'ornamenta,' the incitement of judgement-blurring emotions in the audience.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone is suprised by the conclusions OSC reaches any more, or the vituperative language he uses to reach them. He's totally irrelevant to any kind of meaningful political dialogue. Don't know why people are talking about any of his political columns.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He did, briefly, after a significant loss in his life. I can't think of him posting here routinely without remembering the sadness of that time.
I think he spends his time more productively with his family and work. This place can suck our lives away, and we're just posters. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When he talks like that, it is so hard to convince me... Perhaps I am wrong, if I am, I am willing to yield and back down and admit my ignorance, but when one talks like that... It makes me want to close my ears off or my eyes and just not pay attention... Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I'm finding (possibly) factually incorrect in that article. Kerry gets pretty much the same briefings the POTUS gets as front contender to the Office. This keeps him informed of current events and allows him to form part of his campaign around those events. I'm looking for the link to confirm this and will post it as soon as I find it.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I pretty sure OSC isn't writing to persuade anyone. There are different motives for employing arguments. Persuasion of the undecided or even people who hold a different view is definitely one goal. Another goal, which I think is closer to OSC's purpose, is to deepen the commitment and quite possibly inflame the passions of the people who agree with you.
This is the thing that I think bothers me so much about OSC's writing. He is conciously engaging in demogougery. I think he is trying to circumvent people's rational decision making and influence them to see people as things.
I would not think to imagine that any side in a presidential election is devoid of people who do this.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, its not the same briefing as the President receives, but it is high level briefings, primarily by the CIA, on matters of world intelligence.
There are references all over the net, I'm not even bothering to read how OSC phrased his attack, as once he blatantly stopped caring about fact checking I stopped caring what he thought about politics.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
