BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:47 PM

Ooh, that didn't go so well, did it? Let me try that one again!


I was going to comment that I too registered for the draft, as I turned 18 after 1980. This does not mean that I was in danger of being drafted to serve in Viet Nam.

Thus, the registration of Edwards and/or BeardedBruce is not sufficient to answer the question "did he have to seek a deferment to avoid the draft?"

Thus, the whole question of Edwards and Beardedbruce is another right-wing red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are so many voters clueless?
From: Genie
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 03:34 PM

Back to the issue of who's "clueless," it's primarily the voters who are, because so many people rely on TV sound bites and slanted campaign news coverage for their information.

The mainstream channels (other than C-Span and PBS) covered a lot more of the Republican than the Democratic convention, not to mention that CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc., gave as much air time to their talking heads (including some right-wing commentators) during the Dem. convention as to the actual speeches. The Rep. keynote speaker, "Democrat" Zell Miller, got his speech aired on most networks. Barack Obama's keynote speech for the Democrats got almost no air except on PBS and C-Span.

When the network and cable "news" channels are not displaying blatant partisanship -- usually pro-Bush -- they shirk their main responsiblity by playing sportscaster rather than referee. If the "news" media will not call a lie a "lie" or a distortion a "distortion" -- regardless of which side is responsible -- who the heck will?

There is precious little investigative journalism and critical analysis of the campaign rhetoric of either side. It's mostly stuff like "Kudos to Carl Rove and Cheney! That last blow was below the belt, but it sure was effective!"

If the networks are going to accept campaign ads regardless of their truth, the least the press could do, if they really care about democracy, is point out the lies and deceptions when they see them. E.g., the second round of "Swift Boat Veterans" ads blatantly distorted Kerry's post war testimony on behalf of the Winter Soldiers, and I rarely saw anyone (other than John McLaughlin) express any outrage about the public being misled that way.

Kerry and Edwards hardly got any media coverage of their campaign before the Dem. convention and relatively little since then. How on earth can someone say what a candidate is or is not talking about when the media pick and choose the teeny soundbites they want to air?

PS:
Does Kerry's website really say "Peddling and back peddling is something America can't afford. " LOL
Someone needs to tell their website gurus not to rely on SpellCheck to edit what they post! :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 04:32 PM

Search deeply within yourselves and be sure you know what you really want.....then go for it...but BE SURE!!!!!!!
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:35 PM

Genie

yes, I noticed that error too. No one ever said Kerry was perfect!

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 08:41 AM

Kerry won't complain seriously about imbalanced coverage between his campaign and Bush's because if he were to be elected, he would enjoy the same advantage when up for re-election in 2008 and again (if Edwards ran) in 2012.

The imbalanced coverage does give the advantage to the incumbent. Which is why we have a government of incumbents. But it is the system that gives the incumbents most the advantages so they accept it as is.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 06:49 PM

Kerry is talking about the economy, heath care, education and jobs. You just won't hear about it on mainstream media. The Press have become whores.They no longer print truth and are disreputable in their facts. In order to really know what's going on, you have to go to other sources such as smaller publications that don't have an economic investment or are beholden to corporate owners. Even PB-Mess has been corrupted. Forget ABC, CBS or NBC, CNN and Fox. "Sixty Minutes" has a modicum of credibility as does "Now" with Bill Moyer. That's about it for mainstream news.
   A good source of information comes from Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now". Other sources can be found on the Net.
   Fortunately, there are a lot of good books out there today. "What's the Matter With Kansas", Thomas Franks, "Intellegence Matters" Senator Bob Graham, "Unraveled" by Paul Krugman, and there are others.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:09 PM

and what is Kerry saying about Sudan? I would really like to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:13 PM

What is BUSH saying about Sudan? That will then allow us all a barometer by which to judge Kerry's statements. Bush is, after all, the leader of the American people.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:18 PM

see the Genocide thread for the administration's efforts....

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:25 PM

Easy enough to get some idea:

Google News:

    Bush + Sudan

    Kerry + Sudan

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 12:44 AM

The important point to note for Kerry, is that he isn't calling for the US to send in it's own troops. Which is the same thing the Bush administration is saying. Kerry is using his usual "send in the international troops" without saying who, how, when, or where he is getting them from, giving a timetable for action (which is of the utmost importance on the ground in Sudan right now).

The Bush administration is saying it will support sending in more African troops.

Neither man is calling upon NATO, for instance. Or even the blue helmets, for that matter.

It isn't looking good for the Sudanese of the Darfur region, if what the two candidates are saying is anything to go by. Both are mouthing the same rhetoric the Clinton administration mouthed during the Rwandan genocide they easily could have prevented, but chose not to, because it would entail too much political risk for Clinton/Gore at home. Which makes them, like Kofi Annan, the UN official with the responsibility for doing something about Rwanda who stood by in silence, war criminals in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 09:35 AM

Yes. But Colin Powell said last evening that the US had no intention of going there.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 12:55 PM

You're being, shall we say, slightly intemperate, GUEST.

You're saying they are war criminals because they DIDN'T go to war?

Many people personally could have gone to Rwanda to try to help a single person or family who was being attacked. Yet we didn't. Does that make us all criminals?

I agree our government should have done something. But the way you throw around terms like "war criminal" is pretty harsh. You could call every president who ever was and ever will be a war criminal by these standards. Lincoln? Huge War Criminal! Roosevelt? (Take your pick)! Giant War Criminals!

Being sworn in as President would almost automatically make you a war criminal, if in order to avoid it you had to participate in every just action and refrain from every unjust one.