kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 22, 2004 9:22:45 GMT -5
Also, the notion of using either campaign website or even, sadly, the official White House site as a debunking tool is somewhat silly unless it is used to link to a speech or an article from a news source. Like "I've got a plan for [insert issue here]. Just go to my website at www.johnkerry.com for more information" You gotta love those internets
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Oct 22, 2004 11:36:51 GMT -5
This is pathetic. NYC asks for one story about Shrum, he gets one, and Jersey continues with the "yeah, well...it's not as bad as [fill in partisan hack rumor]." Furthermore, Republican skews are "not worth the paper they're printed on," while Democrat skews are "legitimate grist for the mill." Holy crap! Get off it or look in a mirror. You're not untouchable.
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Oct 22, 2004 11:40:55 GMT -5
Also, and I just noticed this, is there some kind of ethical relativism that allows Democrats to play dirty in "blue" states and Republicans to play dirty in "red" states, as Jersey implies above. For the sake of our country, Jersey, please don't ever get involved in politics.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 22, 2004 12:19:27 GMT -5
My comments were made just to suggest that the Baltimore example is chump change compared to Rove's "accomplishments." When you put it in context, does "playing the race card" really stack up to what Rove has done during his career? Methinks some on this board are subscribing to what I call the head for an eye rule.
Some of the Republican skews are worth printing and covering. I agree that the initial Swift Boat Veterans for Bush coverage was justified to the degree that it represented an initial volley in the election. Indeed, some of their claims bring to light some activity that voters should know about. Whether they use it to make judgments about voting is a separate question.
Anyway, just trying to bring some clarity to my position. The red state v. blue state comparison was perhaps wrong on my part, but I made it to suggest that what is worse than partisan hackery is using it to try and change an election, which Republicans couldn't do in red states and Democrats in blue states. Both are wrong, but, in my estimation, one is even worse than the other.
Incidentally, I'm not as interested in politics as I am policymaking. Unfortunately, I do not think policymaking has been discussed enough in this campaign due to the political tactics on both sides.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,518
|
Post by DanMcQ on Oct 22, 2004 15:00:43 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I do not think policymaking has been discussed enough in this campaign due to the political tactics on both sides. Word.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 22, 2004 15:36:56 GMT -5
I'm still Editeded that Bush/Cheney hasn't gone after Kerry's 20 year record in the Senate. On the flip side, I still don't think Kerry has attacked Bush's record as effectively as they could have. I guess it's come down to hunting photo ops and did what in the military/guard 30 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 22, 2004 15:47:56 GMT -5
You have to be kidding that Bush and Cheney haven't gone after Kerry's record vigorously. Their campaign has focused on two key themes: 1) Kerry's record in the Senate is inconsistent, so he is a flip-flopper. 2) Kerry is consistently liberal to the degree that Kennedy is the conservative Senator from Massachusetts.
They've tried to to make hay out of how many times Kerry has voted to raise taxes using the principles of tax cutting idealogues. They've accused him of voting against weapons systems that they allege won us the Cold War (even when Cheney supported the same exact cuts as Secretary of Defense). If you think that they haven't attacked, please revisit the RNC and pay special attention to Zig Zag Zell and others.
I agree that Kerry hasn't gone after Bush's record effectively. Part of the problem is that not everything, such as the stem cell issue, can be discussed effectively in a 30 second spot or even a 2 minute debate answer. Nonetheless, good consultants can figure out how to pull it out.
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Oct 22, 2004 15:50:34 GMT -5
Incidentally, I'm not as interested in politics as I am policymaking. Unfortunately, I do not think policymaking has been discussed enough in this campaign due to the political tactics on both sides. Thoughtful addition to your post. Absolutely agree. Discussions of policy are limited to soundbites to the detriment of general understanding. However, and this is something I grapple with, is the reason for that because the public is unwilling to devote time to understanding all the issues? There are single issue voters and their votes count one. There are people who vote for no reason. Their votes count one. There are people who agonize over policy papers and reach a synthesis. Their votes count one. To a large extent, our disappointing electoral process is the product of a disappointing society. That's why some of these drives for turnout are self-defeating. I don't know if our electoral process can handle more uninformed voters. But their votes count one, so the campaigns need to chase them down. Who's at fault? Rove/Shrum? Or are they, as even Jon Stewart put it, just manipulating people as means to a more noble end?
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Oct 22, 2004 15:56:03 GMT -5
Part of the problem is that not everything, such as the stem cell issue, can be discussed effectively in a 30 second spot. Gentleman's try, though, for promising that under a Kerry presidency, people like Christopher Reeve will walk. Please. Mirror?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 22, 2004 16:00:57 GMT -5
That's precisely the point. The issue, which is one of Kerry's strongest IMO, hasn't gotten any traction because media outlets won't carry the detailed explanation that it requires (unless it is in the form of a convention speech, which even still didn't cover it as much as it should have been), and the average voter can't pick up on the nuances of the issue and why, for example, Bush's position does not allow for true scientific research because the existing embryonic lines are mostly damaged and contaminated.
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Oct 22, 2004 16:13:54 GMT -5
In fairness, and it seems like this is the kind of in-depth debate you want to pursue, stem cell lines are self-replicating. There could only be one line available and it could supply scientists forever, albeit slowly. One of the lines currently available has already resulted in 136 shipments. Furthermore, there is no ban on stem cell research and the government does fund it to an extent. Also, the administration fully supports adult stem cell research, and while there are theories that embryonic stem cells are the more malleable, there is no hard proof that adult stem cells are worthless. This science is in its infancy (no pun intended), and while I for one would support greater stem cell research (especially using embryos from clinics that would otherwise keep them frozen), I don't fault President Bush for trying to strike a reasoned compromise. A large percentage of the population believes embryonic stem cell research is akin to abortion and that their tax dollars should not be used to support it. This view may change as the science progresses and yields groundbreaking results. If, or when it does, I think more Federal dollars would become available. Many countries -- Ireland, Austria, Germany -- ban stem cell research outright. While Kerry says he would expand Federal funding for stem cell research, it is also currently true that the U.S. is leading the world in support of this science.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 22, 2004 17:39:32 GMT -5
You have to be kidding that Bush and Cheney haven't gone after Kerry's record vigorously. Their campaign has focused on two key themes: 1) Kerry's record in the Senate is inconsistent, so he is a flip-flopper. 2) Kerry is consistently liberal to the degree that Kennedy is the conservative Senator from Massachusetts. I think they could do a lot more. I think Bush could have done a lot, lot more in the debates rattling off all the things that Kerry has voted against or supported. There's a reason Senators don't become President. The flip-flopping is based only on the past few years. There's a lot more there to go after. So far, only the RNC and 527's and such have really hit hard. I think the actual Bush/Cheney campaign hasn't focused on it too mcuh.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Oct 23, 2004 1:09:18 GMT -5
Jersey-
You mentioned in one of your posts about the race card not being as bad as some of the things Karl Rove has done. I didn't read the linked articles, nor am I familiar with the past deeds of Karl Rove or whoever this Shrum character is. What I DO know is that the issue of race is the single most devisive issue in the country, if not the world. So-called "race baiting" is the lowest of lows when it comes to campaign tactics (even lower than unnecessarily bringing the sexual preference of the Vice President's daughter into the debate), and even one instance of such an effort is far, far worse than anything else that can be done. Unfortunately, it's a tactic that works, and as long as it works some vermin will try to use it.
As an aside, I mentioned John Kerry's reference to Mary Cheney in my post. Can anyone on either side, Kerry supporters or Bush supporters, please justify this being an issue. Yes, same-sex marriage is a campaign issue, but I don't see the "Senator" (I use quotes because he hasn't really been doing his job much over the last year) referring to other gay or lesbian couples in America by name. Even if I hadn't already decided to vote for President Bush, stuff like that can make me vote against a candidate in a hurry. It just seems like a low-blow, and it surprises me that people think it isn't a big deal. Her father is running for Vice President; she is not.
And to answer another question I believe was mentioned in this thread, I believe 100% that Bush supporters are truly Bush supporters while Kerry supporters are mostly just Bush-opposers. Not the best way to choose a candidate, but I won't expand on my opinions on that issue in this post. I started out as a Bush supporter, and am now a Bush supporter AND a Kerry-opposer. I find that to be true amongst my handful of friends who are also voting for Bush as well, not just me.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 23, 2004 11:28:49 GMT -5
In fairness, and it seems like this is the kind of in-depth debate you want to pursue, stem cell lines are self-replicating. There could only be one line available and it could supply scientists forever, albeit slowly. One of the lines currently available has already resulted in 136 shipments. Furthermore, there is no ban on stem cell research and the government does fund it to an extent. Also, the administration fully supports adult stem cell research, and while there are theories that embryonic stem cells are the more malleable, there is no hard proof that adult stem cells are worthless. This science is in its infancy (no pun intended), and while I for one would support greater stem cell research (especially using embryos from clinics that would otherwise keep them frozen), I don't fault President Bush for trying to strike a reasoned compromise. A large percentage of the population believes embryonic stem cell research is akin to abortion and that their tax dollars should not be used to support it. This view may change as the science progresses and yields groundbreaking results. If, or when it does, I think more Federal dollars would become available. Many countries -- Ireland, Austria, Germany -- ban stem cell research outright. While Kerry says he would expand Federal funding for stem cell research, it is also currently true that the U.S. is leading the world in support of this science. You raise some good points here. I don't have time to respond in great prose, but I'd like to pass along a few bullet points. 1) Adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research are two different things, as you know. The discoveries that each can produce are to different degrees and in somewhat different kind. So, our pursuit of adult stem cell research should not inhibit our embryonic efforts. 2) The moral issue may be a red herring. Consider that not only are these embryos frozen indefinitely, but they are often destroyed. Kerry's policy seeks to make use of those embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. Also, is it truly a pro-life argument to say that Bush's position protects life when embryonic research could bring about medicines and treatments that save lives. Additionally, just because people believe that it is akin to abortion does not make it so, nor does it even necessarily justify a policy that adheres to the moral majority, which, incidentally, isn't often moral or the majority. The salience of their opinions and their attentiveness, however, make it seem so. 3) While some states do ban embryonic research, there are many, including fairly religious places (Israel), that permit it. Additionally, I don't believe that our country is on the cutting edge of embryonic stem cell research, although this might not be said for our adult stem cell research. There are several other countries that have more lines open than we do. Anyway, good discussion...
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Oct 23, 2004 12:14:32 GMT -5
joe, bringing up mary cheney highlights the terribly dehumanizing effect of the bush admin's stance towards gays. the comment was only offensive if you consider homosexuality a bad thing you should keep quiet--all the critics have compared it to bringing up a child who is a drug user, criminal, etc. note the complete lack of offense taken by any members of the gay community.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 23, 2004 20:31:41 GMT -5
Jersey- You mentioned in one of your posts about the race card not being as bad as some of the things Karl Rove has done. I didn't read the linked articles, nor am I familiar with the past deeds of Karl Rove or whoever this Shrum character is. What I DO know is that the issue of race is the single most devisive issue in the country, if not the world. So-called "race baiting" is the lowest of lows when it comes to campaign tactics (even lower than unnecessarily bringing the sexual preference of the Vice President's daughter into the debate), and even one instance of such an effort is far, far worse than anything else that can be done. Unfortunately, it's a tactic that works, and as long as it works some vermin will try to use it. As an aside, I mentioned John Kerry's reference to Mary Cheney in my post. Can anyone on either side, Kerry supporters or Bush supporters, please justify this being an issue. Yes, same-sex marriage is a campaign issue, but I don't see the "Senator" (I use quotes because he hasn't really been doing his job much over the last year) referring to other gay or lesbian couples in America by name. Even if I hadn't already decided to vote for President Bush, stuff like that can make me vote against a candidate in a hurry. It just seems like a low-blow, and it surprises me that people think it isn't a big deal. Her father is running for Vice President; she is not. And to answer another question I believe was mentioned in this thread, I believe 100% that Bush supporters are truly Bush supporters while Kerry supporters are mostly just Bush-opposers. Not the best way to choose a candidate, but I won't expand on my opinions on that issue in this post. I started out as a Bush supporter, and am now a Bush supporter AND a Kerry-opposer. I find that to be true amongst my handful of friends who are also voting for Bush as well, not just me. I am not sure whether race is the most divisive force in America. At the same time it may be divisive, it is also unifying, as African-Americans will vote for Kerry at a rate of about 85%. I would suggest that political parties are the greatest dividing force right now, as they seem to split us right down the middle in a fashion more or less corresponding to Hotelling's Rule. As such, I view Rove's actions on behalf of his party as being more reprehensible than the race baiting.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Oct 23, 2004 21:07:14 GMT -5
At the same time it may be divisive, it is also unifying, as African-Americans will vote for Kerry at a rate of about 85%. You kinda just made my point. Unifying solely on the basis of your race is the same as dividing. Are racists in the South "unifying" themselves in white supremacist groups, or are they attempting to divide themselves off from minorities? "Unification" of one race or another has the effect of dividing it off from the others.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 23, 2004 21:13:13 GMT -5
This is also true, and I made my argument in the spirit of a Devil's advocate. However, one should recognize that African Americans unite with some "whites" in their voting behavior. My suggestion is just that one's analysis depends on levels of analysis and so forth.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,740
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 23, 2004 21:42:07 GMT -5
The black vote is poorly served by both parties. They are ignored by the GOP and pandered to by the Democrats without much in the way of progress by either. Campaigning among the Hispanic communities is probably not much better.
2004 will go down as the election where neither candidate distinguished themselves as a man for the office. The party that cleans house and takes a new approach in 2008 with new names and new approaches to what is increasingly a multiracial nation could govern for decades to come.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 23, 2004 21:48:41 GMT -5
The black vote is poorly served by both parties. They are ignored by the GOP and pandered to by the Democrats without much in the way of progress by either. Campaigning among the Hispanic communities is probably not much better. 2004 will go down as the election where neither candidate distinguished themselves as a man for the office. The party that cleans house and takes a new approach in 2008 with new names and new approaches to what is increasingly a multiracial nation could govern for decades to come. Sadly, an appropriate question to ask is whether it would take an African-American or Hispanic candidate for President or VP to bring about a change in approach. It has proven to be successful, to some degree, to have women in Congress because of their special emphasis on women's issues. I wonder whether the same is true on issues that divide us racially.
|
|