Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kerry vs Bush

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kerry vs Bush

    Hello guys,



    I haven’t been on the forum for a while, but I thought I would come back and ask what you think about the oncoming fight between Kerry and Bush. Although I am not an American, I am still very interested in the election, considering the impact the US has on the world stage.



    Now, I know the Republicans on this forum will stand with Bush no matter what, and that Democrats will rejoice that they now have a credible challenger. Fair enough.



    But debates where people carefully thread the party line are boring. Partisan politics are simplistic and hypocritical, so let’s try to go beyond party lines and judge these 2 guys at face value instead.



    After 4 years as President, we know Bush quite a lot now. I think his main quality his a very strong will. He is a determined man in all aspects, whether in his personal life or as President. His main weakness is a lack of intellectual depth, which is partially compensated by quite a few strong minds in his inner circle. This lack of intellectual depth is aggravated by an apparent unwillingness to try to understand the complex world around him. When things start to get complex and difficult, he gives me the impression that he closes his mind and just restate his strong conservative values, as if this could solve any problem. This character never leave anybody indifferent. It’s either you like him or not.



    At first glance, Kerry looks relatively unimpressive. He is not really charismatic (but then Bush is not any better). Then when you look more closely at his resume, it starts to get better. His well-publicized Vietnam duty is a strong asset, especially for a Democrat. He knows what he’s talking about, having been there. His political experience is somewhat more limited than Bush though. As a character, he has definitely more intellectual depth than Bush. The simple fact that he speaks two languages tell you a lot about his mindset towards the world around him.



    It seems to me that, barring a catastrophe or another one of these stupid “sexual affairs” (it constantly amazes me how much immature fuss there is in America around sex – ex: the Janet Jackson so-called “scandal”), this should be an interesting campaign.

  • #2
    Bush or Kerry?
    Hum kinda like giving a man a choice between driving off a cliff at 75mph or 100mph IMHO...

    Neither major party canidate is an option for me. Both have shown they are willing to restrict the Freedom and Liberty of citizens more and more. Mind you they will do this in different areas though.

    The biggest issue I see with Bush is the economy. Defciet spending is leading us down a nasty trail of ruin. We can only out spend the budget for so long.

    With Kerry I just don't trust the guy. He is too slick for me. Also I disagree with him on about of his policy ideas so....

    Me, well, I will probally end up voting for the Libertarian Party canidate for president.

    _Tim
    Last edited by Tim McBride; 03 Mar 04, 10:01.
    "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

    Comment


    • #3
      I would agree niether Bush or Kerry strike me as being great statesmen, Bush should win because there is really no alternative.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hey Tzar,

        The personality profile of GWB states:

        Strengths:

        - the important political skills of charisma and interpersonality, which will enable him to connect with people and retain a following;

        - self-confidence in the face of adversity;

        - an outgoing, gregarious personality that appeals to voters who favor style over substance in an era of prosperity and peace; and

        - an adventurous streak conducive to the cut and thrust of political life.

        Weaknesses:

        - the propensity for a superficial grasp of complex issues;

        - a potential for acting impulsively, without fully appreciating the implications of his decisions or the long-term consequences of his policy initiatives;

        - a risk of failing to keep himself adequately informed; and

        - placing personal connections, friendship, and loyalty over competence in his staffing decisions and appointments.

        Kerry's profile is still being compiled. However, some points are already clear. John Kerry appears better aware of global affairs. He came back from being an underdog to Howard Dean. Unlike Dean, he didn't crack in the face of this adversity. Kerry is able to relate to minorities both because of his democratic background and history. (grandfather was Jewish; mother a Winthrop, attended school in Switzerland, Yale.)

        The problem comes with his ability to inspire support beyond Democrats. Unlike Bush, Kerry lacks the character that excites voters. He appears plain, and boring. GWB doesn't say much, but makes good use of simple sentences. He also illustrates a higher degree of self-confidence. An example of that was shown in his speech in Australia that was interrupted. He immediately made a whitty remark out of the blue. That can be a difficult trait.

        Kerry could challenge Bush's over-simplicity of issues. In debates, Bush will likely illustrate a lack of knowledge about the finer details. Unfortnately, general voters prefer simplicity over detail. This coupled with the current situation in Iraq, the economy, and the general mood toward the inter-national community makes Bush a tough cookie to break. The best advice I can give Kerry is to simplify complicated issues, continue to reach out to minorities, and try to develop a campaign strategy that keeps himself as the underdog for as long as possible. The longer Bush feels he is in the lead, the more exposed he is to defeat. Kerry should avoid bringing out the dog in Bush.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          it would probably help the US if they made voting compulsory...
          Now listening too;
          - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

          Comment


          • #6
            First, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a rabidly partisan Republican who is currently volunteering on the Bush campaign.

            I just have a couple of questions for Tzar and DP -- Why do you believe Bush doesn't comprehend or appreciate complex issues? I just don't see evidence of this point, though it seems to be "common" wisdom. I believe you mistake his management style for a poor grasp of the issues, which I think is a huge mistake. I actually think this is a common mistake for most Democrats (not that I'm trying to lump you in that category). And the mistake benefits Bush because he is often the intellectual underdog.

            Unless the economy tanks or something goes seriously wrong in Iraq, I don't think Kerry has a chance. His record is too long and the nature of legislators is that they have a lot of votes that can be used against them.

            Take care,
            Brian

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov
              it would probably help the US if they made voting compulsory...
              No. I don't want that.

              I want to force them to think it through and actually register for voting. Otherwise, they need to shut up and stop complaining what went wrong in the White House.

              In fact, the majority of people who complained loudly about Bush were the very same people failed to register for vote or didn't vote anyway due to apathy.

              Besides, America is about free will, how can it be free will if one is already registered for voting at birth or when they turn 18 years old? When they get into politics, I want them to actually think hard and long on various issues, I don't want the vote ballots to be handed out like candies. It shouldn't be like that.

              Dan
              Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

              "Aim small, miss small."

              Comment


              • #8
                .

                Bush has seen the country through some of the toughest times in the past 40 years, maybe even tougher. He has taken determined action to confront the source of the problems abroad where the other party simply refused to take any leadership. Placing the economy on the back of the president has always been a shallow ploy with no real credibility in the eyes of the public and is easily understood to be more of a threat then a promise. If he removes the present American military presence in Iraq and leaves a government, the presidency is his.

                For myself, I despise Kerry so much that despite Bush's caving in on amnesty for illegals, I may vote for him anyway against Kerry.
                Get the US out of NATO, now!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tzar
                  Hello guys,



                  At first glance, Kerry looks relatively unimpressive. He is not really charismatic (but then Bush is not any better). Then when you look more closely at his resume, it starts to get better. His well-publicized Vietnam duty is a strong asset, especially for a Democrat. He knows what he’s talking about, having been there. His political experience is somewhat more limited than Bush though. As a character, he has definitely more intellectual depth than Bush. The simple fact that he speaks two languages tell you a lot about his mindset towards the world around him.
                  Well, bush also speaks two languages as well. He can speak Spanish.

                  Personally I'm not a fan of Bush because he seems to have a real lack of intellectual curiosity. I also don't like that he's promoting such a big government liberal agenda, and lack of any fiscal restraint. It seems the only conservative poilicies he pursues are that of the religious nuts. In other words, he makes the worst choices in terms of what issues to take a conservative stand on whileen acting liberal policies on issues that truly matter to me.

                  The problem is, that i really hate Kerry. I think he's a pompous jerk. He seems to be a really plastic bureacratic flake. I can't vote for someone who is more liberal than Bush even though i don't like bush. I think most conservatives find themselves in this dilemma.
                  "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Scully
                    I just have a couple of questions for Tzar and DP -- Why do you believe Bush doesn't comprehend or appreciate complex issues? I just don't see evidence of this point, though it seems to be "common" wisdom. I believe you mistake his management style for a poor grasp of the issues, which I think is a huge mistake. I actually think this is a common mistake for most Democrats (not that I'm trying to lump you in that category). And the mistake benefits Bush because he is often the intellectual underdog.
                    A more recent example of Bush's tendency to over-simplify the complicated was illustrated in his interview on "Meet the Press 2-8-04." His comments were repetitive and lacked clarity. He often makes conclusions on issues like Iraq and the economy with little or no evidence to support his opinion.

                    This doesn't mean the President is a retard. Instead, it suggest President Bush simply reads the end of the book and ignores the rest. That's how he got into so much trouble on Iraq. His original plan clearly suggested he thought the US could surgically remove Saddam without severely damaging the internal infrastructure. When this failed, Bush scrambled for a plan B.

                    The information I provided in the earlier post came from the full psychological profile of GWB's political personality. It was compiled in 2000, and accepted by numerous groups after confirming it fulfilled necessary criteria.
                    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Scully
                      First, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a rabidly partisan Republican who is currently volunteering on the Bush campaign.

                      I just have a couple of questions for Tzar and DP -- Why do you believe Bush doesn't comprehend or appreciate complex issues? I just don't see evidence of this point, though it seems to be "common" wisdom. I believe you mistake his management style for a poor grasp of the issues, which I think is a huge mistake. I actually think this is a common mistake for most Democrats (not that I'm trying to lump you in that category). And the mistake benefits Bush because he is often the intellectual underdog.
                      I think Deltapooh's reply is pretty much on the mark with this. Look at the way he answers and explains ideas in interviews and you see the guy has a limited knowledge bank. Just compare him to his father for example, and you immediately see an intellectual difference. It's not that Bush is simple-minded, it's just that he is not very curious intellectually and it shows when he is trying to discuss complex economic or foreign policy issues. He certainly prefers watching football than a documentary on history, science or biology. Mind you, nothing wrong with watching football, I do watch football quite a lot myself because it is one of my 3 favs sports (along with racing and of course hockey, I am Canadian after all ... but I do also watch and read much more intellectual stuff.

                      I would bet that Bush's bedtime reading during the course of his life has never been much sophisticated. I remember reading somewhere that her wife was quite surprised when she realized that he thought a "bibliography" was the history of the Bible...it's all that small stuff that adds up and tells you that the guy has no intellectual depth. That probably makes him popular with a large segment of Americans however, but since a US president faces complex problems and issues day in day out (and issues that impacts the whole world often), I personnally feel it's an advantage to have a great intellectual drive.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by kid kool
                        Well, bush also speaks two languages as well. He can speak Spanish.
                        I did not know that but after a quick investigation on the net, you are indeed right. I found this article from the June 3, 2002 edition of the New York Times:

                        Various fluent Spanish speakers, depending on their political persuasion,
                        describe Mr. Bush's Spanish as halting to conversational, but all give him
                        high marks for trying. As the Spanish wire service Agencia EFE has noted,
                        Mr. Bush speaks the language poorly "but with great confidence." Other
                        Spanish speakers quibbled last year with Mr. Bush's pronunciation when he
                        made the first radio address in Spanish by a United States president. They
                        noted, for example, that he stumbled over the words administracion and
                        nuestros intereses, or our interests.


                        So Bush does not seem to speak Spanish very well but people acknowledge he's trying and can make himself understood. Being a French Quebecer, I can tell you that Kerry speaks an impeccable French after hearing him the other day on the radio.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Seeing how this will be the first election that I am able to vote in (turning 18 in April ) I will take my desicion very seriously. Even thought Im brought up in a hard core Republican and Christian family, I have always been taught to weight out both sides and not let others influence my desicions. So I have been looking into both Bush and Kerry's platforms and were they stand on issues. So far I agree far more with Bush than Kerry but Im still doing my research. I will not vote for someone just becasue they are in a certain party. I think it is important that everyone takes these steps before making such a big desicsion.

                          Thanks for looking!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hello,

                            I don't get it. Not being an intellectual doesn't mean the end of world.

                            I don't consider myself an intellectual. I shudder at thinking complexities of this world. Everybody keep using the complexities as an excuse in avoiding the responsibility that should be placed squarely on their shoulders. Yet, I can hold up on my own in this forum full of "intellectual" liberals. Are you saying I'm not smart like Bush?

                            That's like saying Saddam had a bad childhood and he's a very complicated person, so we shouldn't blame him for the troubles he's been causing to America for the last 12 years or so. We might as well not blame Hitler for starting World War Two despite the complex issues involved.

                            Don't you see my point?

                            I like Bush, because I can identify with him. I can't identify with Kerry. He acts as if people who aren't being smart don't deserve to live. He tends to disdain some anti-intellectuals. Being an intellectual to me tends to bring out more problems, precisely because he or she is trying to solve a problem in a complicated way instead of going straight to the source.

                            The liberals are acting as if they own the right to the intelligentsia of America. This is quite absurd.

                            I would rather to have a man who is capable of seeing through the bullshit and get straight to the source of problem than trying to dance around it. That is one quality Bush can bring to the office of presidency no matter how much you want to deny that.

                            With Kerry, you can never be sure what he is going to do. He jumps around on various issues so many times I've no idea where exactly he stands on right now. He is full of contradictions, far more worse than Bush is.

                            I don't want a man who can speak two languages impeccably or capable of intellectual discussions, I want a man who is more than a man enough to stand up on his convictions and get straight to the source of problem. I want a man who is more than brave enough to lead America unilaterally and look after America's interests than bowing before the world.

                            If it must be an idiot, let it be so, lest with a smart man like Kerry, I'm going to regret a lot of things.

                            In the end, all I can say is, I'm glad Tzar is not an American and thus his opinion doesn't count!

                            Live long Pax Americana! :flag:

                            Dan
                            Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                            "Aim small, miss small."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              [QUOTE]A more recent example of Bush's tendency to over-simplify the complicated was illustrated in his interview on "Meet the Press 2-8-04." His comments were repetitive and lacked clarity. He often makes conclusions on issues like Iraq and the economy with little or no evidence to support his opinion. [QUOTE=Deltapooh]

                              I wouldn't necessarily equate poor public speaking performance with intellectual ability. Plenty of genius's (based on this spelling I'm sure I'm not one of them ) would have a difficult time with Russert. As someone who has worked in communications for 10 years, I find it significantly harder and more important to deliver a simple, straightforward answer to difficult questions. Anyone can spew out details and factoids, but a well reasoned and simple answer is ideal in any type of communications. While I would never claim Bush is a gifted public speaker, particularly in free flow discussions like Russert's (I did not watch the interview by the way), I don't think that should be a basis for judging his intellectual capacity.

                              [QUOTE]This doesn't mean the President is a retard. Instead, it suggest President Bush simply reads the end of the book and ignores the rest. That's how he got into so much trouble on Iraq. His original plan clearly suggested he thought the US could surgically remove Saddam without severely damaging the internal infrastructure. When this failed, Bush scrambled for a plan B. [QUOTE=Deltapooh]

                              I actually think this is a sign of strength. Because he takes in advice, asks questions and comes to a decision he can also quickly recognize if he's made a mistake and change course. I'm not sure what you mean about "surgically removing" and "severely damaging internal infrastructure," but I've always preferred leaders that are willing to jump to plan B when their original plan did not work. The fact that there was a plan B can actually prove the case that he was intellectually engaged...enough to know he should have a plan B (a weak case maybe in this situation).

                              [QUOTE=Deltapooh]The information I provided in the earlier post came from the full psychological profile of GWB's political personality. It was compiled in 2000, and accepted by numerous groups after confirming it fulfilled necessary criteria[QUOTE=Deltapooh]

                              Interesting...I'd never seen that before.

                              Take care,
                              Brian
                              Last edited by Scully; 04 Mar 04, 21:37.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X