What is wrong with the American Voter?

COL Gene

Join Date 09/2004

What is wrong with the American Voter?

As we move closer to Novemner 2, the polls continue to show a 50/50 split in America. If one were able to step back and look at the facts without the spin both sides use, it would seem to me Kerry should be far ahead.

Polls show that 60% want major changes in our policies and 89 % want some changes. Part of the 50% that are supporting Bush must be part of the 60% and 89% that want change. These Bush supporters must know he will not change in a second term and by voting for him they will get what they claim they do not want - more of the same!

The events in Iraq clearly show the way Bush conducted this war was an error. Even if you supported going to war, few can say he has done the job well. His choices have increased the danger to our military and have turned the Iraq people against the U.S. Why would we want to reward Bush with another term or run the risk of another conflict in which he applied his inept choices.

Look at the economic results:

Job growth that has not produced the jobs needed for our growing population. Bush tells us about the 1.5 million new jobs created during the past 15 months and Kerry tells us about the net loss of 800,000 jobs since Bush took office. What about the over 5 million new workers that enteted the work force in America since Bush took office? Where are the jobs for them? We are 6 million jobs short and the Bush economic policies and tax cuts have not stimulated the economy to create the needed jobs.

We have gone from a national debt of $5.8 Trillion when Bush took office to $7.5 Trillion today. If you turn to OMB and the Bush budget projection, you will find the president predicts that by the end of FY 2008, we will have a national debt of just short of $10 Trillion and never shows a balanced federal budget. His next action is to make all his tax cuts permanent and create even more debt.

Look at the Trade deficit and the jobs that keep going out of this country. What have his policies done to stem that loss?

Look at oil prices. Have we moved away from dependence on foreign oil? NO. Rather then supporting an energy policy that would require increased fuel efficiency, Bush insists on drilling in Alaska that would not produce as much oil as increasing average mileage by one mile per gallon. In addition, drilling in Alaska would take 10 years before any amount of added oil would be produced.

The above are all facts about our situation on October 8, 2004. How can half of America want to continue this by re-electing George W?

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Well the problem with his opinions is that they're not backed up by reality.

Let's look at what Sandy's points:

Bush supporters often put personal finances before the country.
The ignorant white people will vote for Bush.
Kerry is smarter than Bush

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's Democrats who are always proposing giving out free goodies to everyone. Free health care, more unemployment benefits, Subsidized housing, etc. So whose supporters are really more motivated by personal greed?

You see, Sandy, in the real world, if you let the people who CREATE the wealth keep more of it, they will be able to do even more with it. The Bush tax cuts, for example, are what help funded this website. Had Gore been elected, we wouldn't have had the tax cuts that helped pay for the employees who developed JU. Not only do people benefit from that from being able to use it but it also creates jobs and new opportunities which utlimately will lead to more tax income for the country.

Most Bush supporters support Bush because they want the US to vigorously fight the war on terror. We believe, strongly, that if we don't take the fight aggressively to the terrorists that the next attack will be much more devastating (smuggled nuke for instance). It's not because of the tax cuts.

But if you want to talk about putting yourself ahead of the country, I think it's Kerry supporters have lead in that area. There's a big difference between advocating that one should keep more of the money they earn versus advocating taking someone else's money to give to people who haven't earned it in the form of "free" services.

Second point, exit polling data makes it pretty clear that Bush supporters, on average, are more educated than Kerry supporters (all colors). If only college educated people got to vote, Bush would win easily. It is true that Bush does well in the South, that has to do with a culture of self-reliance and general Jacksonian values.

Lastly, I agree that Kerry is probably smarter than Bush. That's irrelevant. Carter was probably smarter than Reagan. LBJ was probably smarter than Eisenhower. McCellan was probably smarter than Lincoln. Intelligence is very interesting in a debating all. But it doesn't make someone a better leader.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol. Just so you are aware, my father served with Col. Gene, I am not his daughter. Second, I do not support the attack on anyone's character. That was my entire point. Nice presumption on your part that I am a Kerry supporter as well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Second, I do not support the attack on anyone's character. "

Actually, you ARE supporting an attack on someone's character. The character of a sitting President, and, I might add, and attacks phrased in the most disrespectful, insipid, low-brow ways most often.

I'm not positive the COL. is a COL at all, considering the way he conducts himself. Strikes me in the same way as any other election-year, book-peddling profiteer, honestly.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bakerstreet. Unfortunately, sometimes questioning our leaders and potential leaders does sound like a character attack. But as an American I do support questioning all of our leaders and potential leaders. That is why I love this Blog site and the comments it generates.

In regards to the Col's qualifications, I would suggest you look him up. There is a biography listed in the back of the book that he wrote; you can read the backpage without buying the book. He is a gradute of the Army War College; his graduating class is only 2 years behind my father's. I am not fully versed in the Col.'s other qualifications, since I was young when the Col. and my father were stationed together, but I can suggest that you look those things up yourself if you convinced his is only "any other election-year, book-peddling profiteer."

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #58 By: A Col's Daughter (Anonymous) - 10/10/2004 8:03:57 PM
Bakerstreet. Unfortunately, sometimes questioning our leaders and potential leaders does sound like a character attack. But as an American I do support questioning all of our leaders and potential leaders. That is why I love this Blog site and the comments it generates.

In regards to the Col's qualifications, I would suggest you look him up. There is a biography listed in the back of the book that he wrote; you can read the backpage without buying the book. He is a gradute of the Army War College; his graduating class is only 2 years behind my father's. I am not fully versed in the Col.'s other qualifications, since I was young when the Col. and my father were stationed together, but I can suggest that you look those things up yourself if you convinced his is only "any other election-year, book-peddling profiteer."

Young lady, Im sure I don't have to tell you that the man you knew then *may not* be the man you know now. People change. His book may have absolutly nothing to do with the fact that this is an election year. But having read ALL the *Col* posts, he IS indeed a book-pedling profiteer. And in a way "bakerstreet" is right. If the *Col* really is a *Col* then he needs to act like one. From what I have seen before this is most definitly "conduct unbecoming" an officer and or a gentleman.

Successfully updated karma reason!

So the '98 WTC bombing was a hoax? Beirut was a hoax? TWA Flight was a hoax? Hmm, I guess we should eliminate those parts in History Books.

Would you at least make some acknowledgement of the point I was trying to make? I was suggesting that we didn't suffer an attack of 9/11 proportions under those examples. Just because we haven't been attacked by Alqueda since 9/11 does not necessarily mean we should credit Bush. At least not anymore than Clinton can claim credit for the lack of meteors falling on the White House during his two terms. I know that Clinton did not vow to make the White House safe from meteors but you make it sound like the U.S. has been under constant terrorist attack throughout time at least, up until the mighty George Bush put a stop to all of it....that's ridiculous. There is that chance that if Bush had done nothing that we wouldn't have been attacked again. David Koresch in Waco Texas, McVeigh in Oklahoma City, Columbine etc, we don't blame these attrocities on any particular president nor do would we credit any one if such domestic terror incidents ceased.

suspeckted

Successfully updated karma reason!

You continue to think acts of foreign nationals are okay because we can compare them to acts of domestic terrorism. Give me a frigging break.
We have not suffered a single attack in three years from both threats of foreign and domestic loonies, and that I must give him credit for.

Your using meteor as analogy shows your poor judgment in how much sercurity has been beefed up, if it was not because of him than who? If he has no effect like you imply, where are the other attacks? Come on where are more attacks? Hmm, give me one attack on US Soil that has taken place after 9/11 by either a Foreign (or Domestic to make it easier), come on just name one, simple.

Seriously attack something tangible and truthful like Bush and Kerry's weak stance on Border Control instead of pull opinions out of your...

- GX
The Anti-Demican Anti-Republicrat Libertarian

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply to drmiler

I have been on the road and have been reading some of the replies.

First, I am trying to have people read my book to make people think about what is at risk in this election. I do not know if you have taken the time to read my book but the factual material as well as the expert opinions are clearly documented so that anyone who in truly interested in the facts can verrify the information or go further. The issues in my book are what is at stake in this election.

The political Ads and the half truths in the debates do not begin to get at what this election will mean. There are more major issues that will have to be addressed by the next president then in any time since WWII. We have security, foreign relations and economic issues that MUST be faced.

From your input I do not believe you want to look at the isues facing our country but they will need to be faced like it or not.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And, frankly, insulting people is a poor way to advertise your book, which, frankly, is the whole point, isn't it?

very true baker.....

But remember for the left....they equate ones intelligence with the amount of education they recieved....which has led them to become more arrogant and angry as a large part of the population doesnt agree with them.....they take this to mean that those who dont agree with them are uneducated, trailerpark, bible thumping idiots....it's all rather laughable as is their man ..Kerry

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am not trying to insult anyone and I am not from the left. I have been a moderate Republican for over 40 years and was a member of the Republican Committee in PA in the mid 70's. It is the GOP that has changed. Prior to 1980, the GOP was dedicated to a fiscal and economic policy that was responsible. The GOP leadership was captured by the VooDoo supply side economic supporters. Like George W. the leadership of the GOP is not looking at reality nor are they interested in adopting policies that fit with the MAJORITY but meet the desires of about 30% (conservatives). Many Republican voters are not being helped by the policies of the Republicans - Energy (oil prices), Social Security(funding), Medicare(funding), Jobs (lack of), shipping jobs out of US, increasing health care cost and loss of coverage etc.

I want to have the Republican party control returned to leaders that are intetrested in a far more centrest policy (where the majority of Americans are) and one that does not mortgage the future of our country!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think I'll start calling myself a radical left-wing socialist.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I see little evidence that Kerry supporters have any monopoly on "impugning the character of half the population". Check out Free Republican threads Liberals have to be from another planet,
Democrats: The Party of Liars, Liberals, and Louts and WHY LIBERALS THINK AND SCARE YOU. Not that you couldn't find the same kind of crap at Democratic Underground, but I think some of the Bush supporters are blind to the prejudice on their own side.

Successfully updated karma reason!

blogic you forget along with DU there is also Drudge Retort and couple of others.

- GX

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lets face it. Bush made mistakes (big ones) and probably the only one who can fix them. Kerry probably could not handle the mistakes Bush made. Bush sucks, but Kerry sucks because he can't fix Bush's mistakes.

So they both suck.

Vote for one of the independants.

My stategy so far:
Vote Bush, Vote all Democratic for Congress and write to my representatives after the election until 2008, when we can vote for Hillary Clinton.

Successfully updated karma reason!

after the election until 2008, when we can vote for Hillary Clinton

Dick Morris seems to have a hard-on for Hillary running in 2008.

Main reason I think he is in the Anti-Kerry camp and siding with Republicans this time around.

- GX

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'll tell you what's "wrong" with American voters: half of them don't trust Kerry.

Even though I plan to (begrudgingly) vote for the guy, I can't say that he'll do a better job than Bush has. All I know is he won't make matters worse in the world. Or so he claims. The thing that has me voting for Kerry is that he's spoken many times of his plan to make America a country that the rest of the world doesn't hate. And, for all of Bush's efforts to protect this country and garner support, I believe this is his one crucial fault: he's pissing people off around the world. Now, I know there are those who want America to be this brash, imperialistic, invade everybody nation (because we're the "best" nation) but... why do you think we were attacked on 9/11 in the first place?
I'm NOT saying they're right, and that we should not respond to 9/11. But here's another thing that bothers me about Bush: he hasn't exactly done what he promised. He and Cheney led us into Iraq, first stating they had WMDs, ties to Al-qaeda, etc. Then it was "Saddam is evil." Closely followed by "liberating the Iraqi people." Meh. Okay, fine, so he wanted to finish what Daddy started but... my BIG question is what the F*** happened to hunting down Osama Bin Laden? And my whole feeling on the casual admittance that "maybe we were wrong about Iraq, but we're still going to finish our job there" is one of utter befuddlement. Why should I, as an American, vote for a guy like this? Now I know what y'all will say about this, that Kerry supported the war blah blah blah... in fact when it comes down to it Kerry supports a lot of the same s*** Bush supports.
So why vote for Kerry? Cancel that... why am I voting for Kerry? Because he cares about what other people think (i.e. the rest of the world). I just don't get the feeling that Bush ruminates on that particular issue that much. And to those who want America to flex its muscles: remember the Romans?

One thing I should add is I understand this whole "love your country" and "God bless America" mindset... but why is it -- and I'm just curious -- also necessary for one who feels this way to blindly follow the President wherever he leads us? Or is it necessary?

P.S. Flame if you must; I just wanted to get my thoughts out.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Now, I know there are those who want America to be this brash, imperialistic, invade everybody nation (because we're the "best" nation) but... why do you think we were attacked on 9/11 in the first place?

Vietnam= Democrat
Bosnia= Democrat
First humanitarian half of Semolina= Republican
Second half man hunt of Semolina= Democrat
Kawait (to save 8 million people from Iraq) = Republican

The attacks on the US happened after how many years of Democrats in office?

The reason why Islamic radicals attacked us in the first place is because of our decadent lifestyle invading their lives. That’s the social decadents that we thrive on now days. It was not because our government was invading their country, it was our lifestyle. They will not stop until that threat is gone and the only way for them to end that threat is to destroy our country.

And to those who want America to flex its muscles: remember the Romans?

Maybe because my Major is in History, I VERY much disagree with this statement. There was many reasons for the Roman Empire fell, but in my opinion Rome fell because it stopped being aggressive. It stopped growing because the people lost the will to fight and no longer where ruthless. When attacked earlier in the Roman history, Rome struck back hard, but later when Rome seen a threat across the boarder they refused to do anything and built walls until the barbarians were at gates of Rome.

John Kerry is the man that wants to back off and not worry about danger until the bombs blowup again in New York. By that time it will be too late.

There is nothing wrong with the American Voter, they just have not forgotten the past like you have.

That's My Two Cents

PS: Not a Flame, just my thoughts.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Firstly, I welcome your (Lee1776) reply. Secondly, if I may continue this (thus far) civil debate:

"The reason why Islamic radicals attacked us in the first place is because of our decadent lifestyle invading their lives. That’s the social decadents that we thrive on now days. It was not because our government was invading their country, it was our lifestyle. They will not stop until that threat is gone and the only way for them to end that threat is to destroy our country."

I'm not saying they had any right to attack us. Frankly, I'm still very angry (no words can really do justice, I'm sure). I want Osama Bin Laden and all who were responsible for the travesty that was 9/11caught. What ticks me off about the whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing is that Bush lied (surprise surprise). Now... I'm not saying John Kerry is innocent of lying. I'd be a very poor man if I had a nickel for every time he stuck to an issue. This turns me off about Kerry. But Bush just irks me. I don't support him. His policies are reckless and irresponsible. If I may be frank, I also very much resent the insinuation that I'm anti-American because of this fact (I'm NOT saying you said this, just that it's the sense that I get around where I live).

"There was many reasons for the Roman Empire fell, but in my opinion Rome fell because it stopped being aggressive. It stopped growing because the people lost the will to fight and no longer where ruthless."

Is this the right way for a nation/Empire to behave? I guess I just don't understand this mindset. America doesn't need, in my humble opinion, to go around the world shoving our lifestyle down everyone else's throats. Responding to 9/11 is one thing... making thinly veiled threats to everyone who doesn't agree with us is another. Actually... let me take a different avenue with this argument... suppose we want to be the World Police. What about Sudan? North Korea? Anywhere else?

"There is nothing wrong with the American Voter, they just have not forgotten the past like you have."

I think you misread my remark. 1) I was trying to state that I understood why about 50% of Americans seem to be voting for Bush, while the other 50% are voting for Kerry. 2) Forgotten the past? Kindly explain what you mean by this.

Successfully updated karma reason!

How many people can Osama command if they are all taken away? (Either by being killed or by being captured)

How many people outside of Al Qaida are Terrorist groups or individuals who want to do harm to the US?

I don't blame Islam, because this is not Islam these Fascist Terrorist preach.

They will not stop until either we are all dead or until they are all dead, end of story.

Though it would be nice to see Arabic countries taking a stand against these groups like the US takes a stand against it's own homegrown loonies (KKK and American Nazi Party).

My Two Shillings Thrown In.

- Grim X

Successfully updated karma reason!

GrimX wrote:

We give our homegrown loonies the same rights as we give everyone else, including the rights of free speech and assembly.

Successfully updated karma reason!

We give our homegrown loonies the same rights as we give everyone else, including the rights of free speech and assembly.

Though do we let them go around killing people in other countries or people period without being punished?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Where did you get the idea that Muslims don't punish murderers and terrorists? Oh yeah...the Saudis don't but hey, they're are friends, right? A friend who was home to 17 of 19 terrorists responsible for 9-11, and who continues to fund terrorists now killing Americans in Iraq. The day folks like you understand the problems with our relationship with the Saudis is the day the rest of the bigger picture will fall into place for you. Until then...I'll just shake my head in disgust.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Kerry supporters, the most vocal ones, seem to think that they're somehow smarter, more informed, more enlightened than Bush supporters.

Not to start a war here, but I believe that one of the weirdnesses of the current political situation is that both sides feel this way about the other side.

The problem seems to be that citizens now pick and choose sources of information aligned with their own point of view, and I think it is true that the vast majority of people on BOTH sides of this election would be hard pressed to explain the opposite point of view -- all the "facts" they have heard fit their own world view, so the opposition must be a bunch of idiots.

I like the Moynihan quote at FactCheck.org -- "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." However, this principle is currently being turned on its head. As things now stand, everyone is entitled to their own facts, and as a result most people feel: "I am so right and you are so wrong, I wouldn't know where to begin to argue with you."

I am not sure how this all came about. Maybe it is due to the explosion in the number of choices of news sources, allowing news sources to target audiences that they want to please with the news they want to hear. (I'm pretty sure that both sides see this in their opponents, but not so much in themselves.

)

It may go back further to the shift from a print based culture to a predominantly image based culture. Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman both wrote how people whose communication is predominantly print based tend to develop habits of logic and reflection -- partly because the information is not self evident, it requires active participation in the receiver's brain to make sense of it. Over thousands of hours of reading, the habit of reserving judgment becomes entrenched. By contrast, image based culture tends to encourage immediate emotional response and a sense of certainty. Your brain records images as things you have actually experienced, never quite internalizing the selectivity of the camera.

It is a sobering thought that many of the most famous images of our era were either staged for the camera or would have given quite a different impression if viewed from a different angle or with a wider lens. This is not a partisan issue -- it applies equally to the felling of the Saddam Hussein statue and the Michael Moore images of pre-war Iraq. However, these visual images come to represent indisputable truth in the minds of viewers, and, worse, after thousands of hours of image based communication, the habit of reserving judgment is replaced with quite an opposite habit.

I'm not sure if either or both fully explain the phenomenon, but I do know for certain that one reason that few people will consider changing sides in this campaign is that the other side looks so ignorant and smug and sure of itself -- and I have the sense that, in that area, both sides are entirely correct.

Successfully updated karma reason!