BGSU FIGHT SONG ON WLW 700

[NWLB]

If a majority think its a mistake the polls mislead as presented. They might think it is a mistake in the present context, not the one that existed when it took place. More over, that feeling of having made a mistake has more to do with the predictable issues we are facing after the war itself, not the fact we did it. And I've seen as many surveys indicating that there was majority support for the war, even with the current issues, and even with the possibility of having done it under incorrect pretenses.

Oh, I know what "voting for authority" and "voting to go" to war mean. It is just that even then Kerry couldn't simply stand as a dove, or agree to go along. It is exactly that fact that is maybe the biggest reason he should never become president of this country. It is the mentality that tries to stall for time after 9/11 rather than respond, hoping to buy time while tempers cool, so god forbid a military response should take place. It is the mentality that spends another twenty years trying to wait somebody out. I'm glad we did what we did, when we did it. I wouldn't have wanted Saddam to have another ten years to find a way to play the terrorist war to his advantage, which at some point he would have. To assume otherwise and not act invites the exact problems we seek to eliminate or at least mitigate.

It may be a complex argument for Kerry to make, but then his party has never enjoyed such debates in the past, I'm not sure why they expect to win one now. Such arguments don't fit on signs, sound good as sound bites. Which is why politics today has devolved into such things. The DNC uses blunt tools to win the rhetorical fights that make up today's political races. The GOP correctly describes it as using "fear." People support one of the parties because under the rhetorical crude both sides use, they believe the core ideology they hold will be best served by the election of one person or the other.

More to the point, tring to make "nuanced" argument seems much more like trying to find an excuse for political moves made in the past. Which is truly Kerry's problem. People don't trust him, people don't feel they know what he would or would not do.

I'm not seeking a fight with anybody, but I have my views and reasons for them.

My reference to Clinton/Dole and Bush/Kerry had a point. In '96 things were pretty good overall, people didn't give Clinton much credit for the economy, didn't approve of him personally, but didn't like the alternative. it was a confusing thing for the GOP at the time. I think the underlying mindset was that they wanted to not try to fix something that wasn't broken. No external threats, decent economy. Plus people generally are not inclined to change. They did in 1991 not based on hard facts, but perception. To boot, the GOP had total control of almost every government body, state or federal, in most of the USA.

This year, the economy isn't great, but most people don't feel it themselves as much as worry about it in general. The war on terror is real. Most people were in favor of invading Iraq, and still feel it had a purpose. Most people were willing to invade Iraq even if it meant large numbers of dead, which exceed even the 1,000+ figure we hit more than a year later. Things are not perfect, but the public seems inclined to stay the course with Bush, rather than risk Kerry. The more Kerry rails against Bush and says he'd do everything different, the more he underscores the basic feeling that will drive people to vote for Bush.

You can make some people care about some issues, some of the time, but you can't make them care about all of them all of the time. They will default to the most basic core concern. In that, they favor Bush.

I've followed the polls, and if they show me anything, it is that overall, people keep coming back to the same position and candidate. If there is concern about how Iraq is going, its not the kind of concern that makes people want to risk Kerry over Bush. They know what they have in Bush even if they feel its imperfect. Kerry keeps saying he'll do everything different, nothing different, whatever-you-want different. Thats is why the "strong and decisive" thing is working for Bush.

So I don't think my view is dumb, I think it is pretty close to the truth. I'm not speaking to what every single individual thinks, but what the public feels as a body.

I don't take my politics lightly, and don't begrudge anybody their views. I was never a CR, didn't like their brand of politics. I read my cycle of political science books every four years, before the election season. I use my education and intellect to weed out agenda or spin from fact in my news, be it print or broadcast. I consider myself to be pretty good at knowing how things will play out politically, and my personal track record is pretty good.

I do educate myself, and if some people, especially those at the center or left of it, don't like how I feel, thats fine. But I get tired of those that respond to my own posts as though I'm reading from some party script. I don't, have not, and don't plan on doing so.

No offense taken or intended to anybody that actually reads my posts.

UT still sucks.

[Schadenfreude]

Yeah Socialized healthcare has a wonderful track record

You've got that right! Canada's system has been one huge failure. Unless you're dieing, you may as well forget about it.

I think most would agree Social Security is immensely popular. Many even share my view, which is that it was one of the great American achievements of the 20th Century.

Canadians view their health care system with the same amount of awe. It is their third rail of politics: Touch it, and die.

During the last election, none of Canada's major parties were calling for privatizing the health care system. In fact, the center-left Liberal Party spent much of its time accusing the Conservative Party of wanting to Americanize health care -- a charge the Conservative Party spent a great deal of time furiously denying.

In that sense, the Canadian debate on health care resembles the debates we Americans tend to have on Social Security.