Bush v Kerry

[georgit79]

Are there actually any real issues being discussed here? From the soundbites I've heard, it just sounds like Kerry and Bush are taking it in turns to try and disparage each other. Both campaigns seem to be 'Don't do it like he's doing it, do it our way'. But does anyone know what 'our way' is?

[tomd]

How that man got to be President is beyond me. He's not exactly the brightest of sparks.

[andy hughes]

Tomd, Bush may not actually appear too hot, but his accademic record was superior to his opposite number Al Gore last time around. I believe that American politics is geared to the personality of the individual, rather than their policies, and this is where TV plays such a vital part. If i were a citizen, I would be inclined to vote for anyone who was not George Bush.

[zgma]

Hear hear, Andy! There *are* real issues here, but they really are using their real differences to bite into each other - it's a very nasty campaign season. Yes, many people do know what "our way" is - and we are so polarized as a country that the decision will really be made by the tiny fraction of people who are undecided. Both are presenting scenarios in which their promised policies will keep the country safe, successfully conclude the war in Iraq, and help the people who are struggling with no jobs and financial hardship. They are coming from completely different perspectives (and be forwarned - my description of Bush's perspective probably won't be fair because I think he's an idiot and his policies are designed to put more money in the pockets of his rich friends and supporters) in how they think they'll reach these goals. On the one hand is Bush, who sees everything in black and white, and thus will not admit to mistakes made in Iraq, or in nuances that mean his current policies are failures (because they sound so good on paper, d@mnit!). For him, we must do exactly as we're currently doing in Iraq, we must give tax cuts to everyone (including the rich people), and we must make religion more a part of government strategies for helping people. (cont'd)

[zgma]

(oh, that looks terrible above because the paragraph breaks aren't back yet) Kerry isn't much better on a lot of things, but he at least recognizes that the Bush system of rewarding his cronies and giving rich people tax cuts is bad. He also recognizes the issues facing normal Americans much better, and he's committed to keeping religion out of it. So I'll second what Andy said - I'm not excited by Kerry, but Bush completely scares me. And what scares me the most is that, I CANNOT understand how people see him and think that he's sincere. He just seems like the biggest a$$hole to me.

[dorset 1954]

Sorry. This is a "vent" not an answer. Well, more a question. How does it happen that America gets such disastrous presidents, e.g. Dubya and Reagan? I haven't been to the States, but have met lots of americans (admittidly ones living in UK) and they have been intelligent people. The voters in the USA can't be stupid. Is it their system, that it only attracts the greedy and corrupt? I mean, I know that is the case here (to a certain extent), that the best Prime Minister wouldn't want the job, etc., But, although I'm more "old labour" than new, Tony Blair does not seem quite as bad as some of those guys governing the USA. I mean, if they were elected to govern the Isle of Wight, it wouldn't be so bad, but the USA!!!!

[zgma]

Hi Dorset.  I think your assumption that US voters aren't stupid is a little generous.  I'm an American, and I'm not stupid, and most of the people I'm friends with aren't stupid, but all of us are voting for Kerry.  I know empirically that half of the country is for Bush, but I have no comprehension of it, and can only conclude that they've either been brainwashed, or ... they're stupid.

 

< P>Now, there is definitely something to the idea that it's our system.  For one thing, campaigns are run mostly on the money collected by the candidates, NOT on government funds... which means that the richest candidate, with the richest supporters, has the best chance of winning.  That would be Bush, the guy who throws tax cuts to the very wealthy but can't be bothered to fund schools.

[incuriam]

The 'people voting for what they have always voted for' isn't reserved to the US. It's one of the funny things about democracy: 40% will always vote (in America's case) Republican, 40% wiil always vote Democrat, and the remaining 20% are swing voters. That means only 20% of the population will ever dictate the outcome of an election.

[darchyboy]

that is a very good point georgit

[sarahthelion]

John Pilger writing in The Spectator said that the difference between them was like the difference between Coke and Pepsi ...

[gm1978]

I am an American citizen living in Britain. I left the United States over a decade ago and never expect to return for any substantial length of time for reasons that are highlighted by the Bush/Kerry campaign. I cannot comprehend people who are willing to vote for a man who insists on bringing religion into the forefront of a nation's politics, who disregards any concern for the environment and sustainable energy resources at a global level, who iwages war on tiny, impoverished countries that pose no real threat and who gleefully ignores a trade deficit that expands each year because Americans insist on consuming an inordinate and totally unnecessary amount of goods. I have fairly strong conservative values and pro-business politics and should, by all accounts, be a prime Republican voter. However, I am no longer interested in America whatsoever and will work toward building a strong and peaceful Europe, and increasing trade with Russia and Asia in the hopes that the world can start cooperating and functioning with little need to pay attention to American war-mongerers.