Comments on: Shorter US election

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:21:24 +0000

a law student’s blogging on the topic: http://mellow-drama.blogspot.com/2004/09/strange-bedfellows-nat-hentoff-wrote.html

By: Giles

Giles — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:19:21 +0000

“a Harvard prof of GWB’s has come forward and claims that not only was he a less than stellar student but was quite the hypocrite about the war………All we seem to get are folks who remember him as a a coward, a drunk, a boor, a hypocrite . . . . ” which paints the picture of a person most people identify with. You paint the picure of an everyman where as Kerry has tried to paint himself as an (unbeleiveable) superman

By: james

james — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:11:37 +0000

jack william bell nailed it. The other thing the Democrats forgot is that Clinton’s Vietnam record is worse than either canidates and the American people could care less. For the vast majority of people, Vietnam is simply not a national issue anymore.

By: Ken Houghton

Ken Houghton — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:42:06 +0000

I believe they are better translated as: Kerry fought in war, saw and heard what people do in war, saw and heard what happened to them when they came back, and did something about it. Bush saw there was a war, didn’t want to puncture his ear drum, arranged a sinecure not uncommon for his class, then blew that off and may have decided in retrospect that he now supported the war. this has morphed into the current day where: Bush supports the war without mentioning the dead. (Belle sums up the general result of the war well: “I thought my government was both more competent and more honest than it actually was.”) Kerry, having expected Bush to choose negotiation and peace and gotten war, supports the troops—and wants to get them out of there as quickly as possible, but doesn’t yet know if this can be done in less than four years. The rest is paperwork that the White House “had every reason to believe” was “authentic.” {Thanks to Brad de Long and Duncan Black.)

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:31:01 +0000

…politician with the profound integrity… Oxymoron.

By: ruralsaturday

ruralsaturday — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:52:56 +0000

Kerry’s going to win the war in Iraq. But for who? It’s as though Bush has stepped out of his own carapace and Kerry’s poised to enter it. Other than masking that fundamental agreement, the reason there’s so much emphasis on Viet Nam, and the jots and tittles of the service/non-service of the respective Bonesmen, is that it’s the only real difference between them. Kerry’s a rich kid with stones and a conscience, Bush is a rich kid without. – Kerry’s current stance appears to be that Bush is not winning the “war”. So the choice is between methods of prosecution. We can smack them with our right hand, or beat them with our left hand. There are many Americans who no longer believe the US military is in Iraq to serve American interests. Only, if the US really was wrong in invading and occupying Iraq, that sort of puts the people who were fighting against that invasion, and who are now fighting against the occupation and its residual puppets, in the right. Sort of, in the sense that resisting someone who’s doing something wrong is pretty much a good thing to do, especially when the wrong that’s being done involves killing women and children. How about 3 kids and 2 women for every American soldier? Is that a good ratio? A comfortable number? For “democracy”? We need a politician with the profound integrity the moment calls for, who can apologize to the world for what’s been done in the name of the American people, who can separate us from the heartless disregard that’s driven us into this bloody ditch.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:23:57 +0000

The copyright symbol is unnecessary; I released the “Shorter” concept to the public domain a few months ago.

By: Jack William Bell

Jack William Bell — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:23:46 +0000

Per Paul’s point, I ammend my description to “Bush really was a callow party-boy who used influence to get out of serving someplace where he might get his ass shot off.” And people still aren’t going to preface their votes on these points. How many swing voters do you know that are going to make their descision based on somthing that happened a generation and a half ago? Much less those that have already made up their minds and aren’t going to let a little thing like the facts get in their way. Let’s face it (and I am speaking as someone who truly detests both parties, and their candidates) the Democrats screwed the pooch on this one. And the Republicans are laughing all the way to the polling place…

By: paul

paul — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:13:16 +0000

Giles, a Harvard prof of GWB’s has come forward and claims that not only was he a less than stellar student but was quite the hypocrite about the war. What did they do with all the people who remember GWB as a solid citizen, as a conscientious pilot, enterprising student, etc? All we seem to get are folks who remember him as a a coward, a drunk, a boor, a hypocrite . . . .

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:12:01 +0000

This should work: © That is: &-c-o-p-y-; , without the hyphens.

By: harry

harry — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:57:38 +0000

What Jack William Bell said. I watched that convention in complete horror. I kept trying not to think about how the Kerry campaign was throwing the election away, but whenever I did so all I could think about was how utterly vile both parties must seem to evewryone else in the world, so thinking about how Kerry was throwing the election away seemed preferable. Someone pointed out to me that if every competent adult over whose life the President of the USA has powerful influence had a vote in this election both the Republican and Democratic Parties would be thrown into the dustbin of history. Small solace, that.

By: Giles

Giles — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:14:35 +0000

“but supported the war ” I haven’t read any contemporaneous articles that Bush felt strongly one way or the other about it – he always seems to explain his service in terms of wanting to fly planes and doing his duty.

By: Jack William Bell

Jack William Bell — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:03:30 +0000

I realize you are being entirely toungue-in-cheek about this. But the media seems determined to follow this path, and for that I blame the Kerry campaign! Why? Because it was Kerry who started this whole thing by making his four months in Vietnam the centerpiece of his strategy. The media went along because it, quite naturally, resulted in controversy—and controversy sells newspapers (and TV ads). Plus it is a hell of a lot easier to talk about than the substantive issues. And hell, it has benefited the Republicans as well. All the storm and fire over a war that ended thirty years ago has taken attention away from the things they are vulnerable on. And they seem to know something the Democrats seemingly haven’t figured out: Your average voter figures that Kerry really was a bloviating glory hog who requested Purple Hearts for scratchs and that Bush really did use influence to get out of serving someplace where he might get his ass shot off. And your average voter just doesn’t care all that much about either one…

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:00:29 +0000

Trollbait? The actual issues are an ungodly disaster, both domestic and abroad, with no solutions available that are not painful. Vietnam as history has some small relevance on character, but mainly since we can’t discuss issues, we have decided to let the election be determined by a two month game of dodgeball.

By: Brautigan

Brautigan — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:57:50 +0000

Have I missed anything important? Yes, you have. Bush lied about it. Kerry didn’t.