Bringing the draft back ???

fivestring · Apr 23, 2004

"Why not real choices like Bob Kerrey on the Democrat ticket vs Powell on the Republican? Men of principled intelligence." 

1. Average American can't see thru the smoke to tell what the person stands for. So, come primary time, TV exposure, lip service and past family party affiliation are gospel to them.
2. Average American spends too much time in front of the TV. This TV time is usually sitcoms, "reality" shows, talk shows, soaps, etc. Not very educational.
3. Average American has other priorities: sports, dining out, vacations, etc. The election issues aren't important enough to them.
4. Real men don't want the job based on the above.

It's all about power. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

That's my guess.....

Maybe this time, I'll vote for all newcomers.
Although I'd hate to see Nadar as Pres. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

DAP · Apr 23, 2004

( ... Remember how Reagan (in his first term, before his mind faded) used to take his thoughts to the public on TV and radio...so even if you disagreed with him you understood his motives and felt somehow heard? )

Pete ... whoa ... now I'm really confused ... you mean his mind faded AFTER he was elected? But I thought ..... oh, never mind.

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DAP · Apr 23, 2004

( I'm not impressed with Kerry either, and wonder what is it about we Americans where time after time we end up with choices like Bush vs Kerry? )

Don't mistake this for cynicism (and why I am having a political debate is beyond me) but I've come to the conclusion that no man I'd consider smart enough to run this country properly would ever entertain taking the job.

Kinda like groucho's quote: "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member!"

/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Tractors4u · Apr 23, 2004

( 2. Average American spends too much time in front of the TV. This TV time is usually sitcoms, "reality" shows, talk shows, soaps, etc. Not very educational.
)

You hit the nail on the head there. I was once polled around election time. The final question they asked was something like, "What would you do to change the election process?" I told them, "Don't let stupid people vote!" Yeah I know, every American has the right to vote. I just wish everyone would know what their candidate stands for, and that means voters on both sides. Basing your vote on who has the best TV commercials, prettiest roadside signs and the like is pathetic.

OkeeDon · Apr 23, 2004

One time when the cable was out, and all I could get were broadcast channels, I stumbled across the late night version of the Jerry Springer show. As I watched these idiots, one thought came to me -- "These people can vote!" I've had a better understanding of the process, since.

AndyM · Apr 23, 2004

I'm not impressed with Kerry either, and wonder what is it about we Americans where time after time we end up with choices like Bush vs Kerry? Why not real choices like Bob Kerrey on the Democrat ticket vs Powell on the Republican? Men of principled intelligence. 

Here's what it's all really about...

Each political party's main goal is to have a candidate from their party elected into the Oval Office. The person who ultimately ends up on the ticket on each side is the most electable, but not necessarily the BEST person for the job. The two parties don't care at all if the BEST person gets elected, so long as someone from THEIR party gets in. Each party, along with the media, hypes the most electable people by giving them the most time, and the person who is best for the job is left standing in the shadows with little attention.

I'm going to use Kerry and Dean in my first example.
(By the way, these are just examples. Let's not argue about the specific people in the examples.)
Dr. Dean made one loud obnoxious speach early on and anything he said before or after didn't matter anymore, both to his party or to the media, while John Kerry is a very polished and slick speaker, comes from a rich distiguished family and has a wife with a famous last name. Even though one person may be better at running the country, the other one is better at convincing the voters to elect them into the White House, which is what is more important.

The next example goes back to the 2000 election, with Bush and McCain. Unfortunately for John McCain, he was running against someone with a famous name. Bush got all of the attention, simply because he stood the best chance of defeating the opposition. McCain stood even less of a chance defeating Gore than Bush did. Even though he may have had the brain to run the country, he didn't have the face or the voice or the name to get elected.

That's what it's all about folks. Spend millions of dollars to get elected, and as soon as you get in, you spend the next four years working on getting reelected. Power is more important than the day to day business of running the country.

[Edit] Pete just reminded me about the 1980 Republican primary. The ex Hollywood actor (Reagan) had much more electability than the former representative, senator, and CIA head (Bush I). Qualifications don't matter, only electability.
Just ask Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Boondox · Apr 23, 2004

(

Pete ... whoa ... now I'm really confused ... you mean his mind faded AFTER he was elected? But I thought ..... oh, never mind.

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )

I don't recall... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Pete

slowrev · Apr 23, 2004

OkeeDon,
If you look at the statistics with the IQ spread, college education, non-literate, etc among the american population you will find that this country is run by the dumbest people because they are in the majority. One of the downfalls of a "democracy". Makes it easier to understand why we wind up with some of the "winners" in public office.

Hank_Kimball · Apr 23, 2004

Bush's approval rating did not start to falter until after the Invasion of Iraq and it appeared that Rumsfield underestimated/did not listen to his adviser and the chaos started.
The poles supported his actions,if Bush can get Iraq stabilized he will be re-elected,the clock is running.
What beliefs has he force fed us with? I agree with the man on 75 % of what he does.I hope he can get a handle on this chaos in Iraq,I want Bush to succeed,I want our troops to succeed.
We would not have been in this mess if Clinton had the guts to deal with it back in 1993.
You keep harping about how dumb Bush is,you are a little over the top on that, I certainly do not agree with you,a genius no,dumb no,average intelligence yes.
Now as far as Clinton being bright,is that very bright to look into the camera and lie to the American people about getting caught up in his lies about Monica,one lie after another? I mean the president comes on TV and you have to tell your children to leave the room because of the news about his infidelity.(Patricia Ireland and NOW were so quiet the silence was deafening)
Morals?? Case in point,Bush does not allow any men in the Oval office with out a dress coat and sleeves rolled down,ladies have to be dressed properly. Clinton is in the Oval office with his pants down around his ankles with Monica and his cigar.
Men of principled intelligence? Kerry? Here you have a man that has the environmentalists support,these people who thinks you are the scum of the Earth if you have an SUV.Kerry owns a private jet/is hauled around in SUVS/limos and has 4 or 5 mansions sitting around the country(talk about efficiency).

I would possibly support a McCain/Powel ticket,I would have to think about it.
Alan Keyes is a good man.
It is too bad Lieberman did not get on the ticket instead of Kerry,in my opinion Lieberman is a good man not that I would chose him over Bush,but definately take Liberman over Kerry or any other Democrat.

fivestring · Apr 23, 2004

Hank, this will really frost ya....

I was just emailed an AP photo of Kerry with Jane Fonda at a anti-war rally.
No surprise there.

My minds definitely made up, now!