Can Ed Koch's Endorsement of Bush Swing Florida Votes?

[the number 42]

The problem with Americans is that they are fixated on busoms.

Isn't that a quote from Sigmund Freud?

JUST KIDDING! DON'T SHOOT! MY HANDS ARE IN THE AIR!

 

[JohnDubYa]

Go ahead and shoot him.

 

[flippy]

Bush may be a poor public speaker, and he may not be the Great Communicator or the Abe Lincoln of our time, but whether u like him or not, if you are in your right mind you would vote for him. Why? Well whether u support his policies or not, at least the guy has policies. The facts are blatant and in your face if you look. John Kerry continually contradicts himself. His voting records compared to what he says make him seem schizo. He obviously has no skill in convincing the public that his ideas are beneficial to the country so he goes out trying to buy the whole country by promoting everyones opinion thereby contradicting himself. If you don't see this then you are not following the election closely enough. No matter what bush is, he aint dangerous, he's no schizo and he's only one person with his own policies...doesnt the constitution call for a one man exec?

 

[the number 42]

No matter what bush is, he aint dangerous, he's no schizo

:rofl:

Compared to who - Caligula?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

:rofl:

Compared to who - Caligula?

I think your getting Bush mixed up with Clinton. Clinton was the debaucher.

 

[Prometheus]

if you are in your right mind you would vote for him.

Very cute double entendre.

Other than this one play on words, your ability with the English language shows why you look to Bush with such admiration.

 

[Gza]

[John Kerry] obviously has no skill in convincing the public that his ideas are beneficial to the country so he goes out trying to buy the whole country by promoting everyones opinion thereby contradicting himself.

And you think Bush has skills in convincing anyone of anything now? He is a proven liar that managed to get us involved in a war that has destroyed our worldwide standing with pretty much every other nation, as well as claimed countless lives for no point. The thing I'm curious about is the fact that Clinton was on the verge of impeachment for lying (about something that is none of the public's business anyway), and Bush who built up an entire case of lies to take us to Iraq is off scott free.

No matter what bush is, he aint dangerous, he's no schizo

You're right, Bush isn't dangerous or a schizo. He's a f**king maniac.

 

[amp]

John Kerry is wise, he can and does adapt to changing situations. He has an open mind and will listen to dissenting views. If he he sees that his platform isn't correct he seeks to correct it. What about Bush? Static, closed minded and dosen't like to be disagreed with, not good qualities in a CNC. Clinton highlighted the problems with Bush in his speech at the Dem convention.

 

[JohnDubYa]

That isn't the type of "open-mindedness" that people accuse John Kerry of possessing. Instead, he is said to pick and choose solutions according to popular whim, and quick to abandon stances when he discovers them to be unpopular.

 

[kat]

!.

And you think Bush has skills in convincing anyone of anything now?

He seems to be convincing to a large portion of the population, in fact he has the highest low point of any president since..what eisenhower maybe?

He is a proven liar that managed to get us involved in a war that has destroyed our worldwide standing with pretty much every other nation, as well as claimed countless lives for no point.

No point?

The thing I'm curious about is the fact that Clinton was on the verge of impeachment for lying (about something that is none of the public's business anyway), and Bush who built up an entire case of lies to take us to Iraq is off scott free.

2 things strike me about this. 1. Martha Stewart is going to prison, then house arrest and then probation for the exact same crime as Clinton was found guilty of. How is that for justice? and 2. If Bush is guilty of so much lying (must be intentional to be lying) then why hasn't there been any prosecution..maybe it's a case of more smoke then fire eh?
[/QUOTE]

 

[russ_watters]

John Kerry is wise, he can and does adapt to changing situations.

Indeed, he can hold opposing views simultaneously. An impressive skill. Orwell called it "doublethink."

 

[the number 42]

I think your getting Bush mixed up with Clinton. Clinton was the debaucher.

Can't argue with that. Must be getting Bush mixed up with some other megalomaniac.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

John Kerry is wise, he can and does adapt to changing situations. He has an open mind and will listen to dissenting views. If he he sees that his platform isn't correct he seeks to correct it. What about Bush? Static, closed minded and dosen't like to be disagreed with, not good qualities in a CNC. Clinton highlighted the problems with Bush in his speech at the Dem convention.

This sounds like a dog chasing his tail. If you have to keep changing your position, you have no vision. The only thing I get from this guy is that he wants to play kiss my ring with the French and Germans and we'd be the one's genuflecting.

 

[Gza]

If Bush is guilty of so much lying (must be intentional to be lying) then why hasn't there been any prosecution..maybe it's a case of more smoke then fire eh?

I guess that really depends on your definition of "intentional" (man, I'm starting to sound like Clinton during his impeachment trials ) Bush being the chief in command, should should have the mental faculties to be able to screen what is probable information, from what is improbable. I'm tired of him never taking responsibility for anything he does. The lack of WMDs in Iraq was blamed on the CIA for "faulty information." He even went as far as to blame the US NAVY for putting up the "mission accomplished" banner without his knowledge on the carrier that staged the now infamous, Bush in a flightsuit fiasco. I really dislike Kerry, but I care about my future, and with Bush in office for another four years, I doubt we'll have one.

 

[JohnDubYa]

The lack of WMDs in Iraq was blamed on the CIA for "faulty information."

First, we have no way of knowing if WMDs are still located in Iraq.

Second, the faulty information sucked in the British too. So the idea that Bush was the only one misled is, well, misleading. As a President, you have to have a certain level of faith in information provided by your intelligence services. Sometimes they can let you down.

 

[Prometheus]

As a President, you have to have a certain level of faith in information provided by your intelligence services. Sometimes they can let you down.

I will grant you this. Still, Bush was very gung ho in maximizing all evidence that points to Iraq as justification for the invasion that he personally felt was important. As a result of his attitude, in conjunction with the intelligence that he received, filtered as it was to select that which supported his goals, he conducted actions with significant global implications.

Do you think that Bush is exonerated completely due to the errors in the intelligence that he received? Or, do you think that he should take responsibility for the errors that he made, even though it was not 100% his fault? By taking responsbility, I mean more than uttering the words "I take responsibility." By taking responsbility, I also mean more than contending that although all of his primary justifications for the war turn out to have been based on faulty or misleading information, all this goes to prove that the war was the correct move in the first place.

 

[kat]

I will grant you this. Still, Bush was very gung ho in maximizing all evidence that points to Iraq as justification for the invasion that he personally felt was important.

I'm not sure that he was as "gung ho" as your suggesting. In fact, I personally think that weaponry was moved/hidden as a result of the time lapse between mentioning attacking and giving the many "chances" that were given.

As a result of his attitude, in conjunction with the intelligence that he received, filtered as it was to select that which supported his goals, he conducted actions with significant global implications.

does the 9-11 report suppost that it was filtered to "select that which supported his goals"? Despite the repeated crime of "global implications" it appears to be less global and more regional.

Do you think that Bush is exonerated completely due to the errors in the intelligence that he received? Or, do you think that he should take responsibility for the errors that he made, even though it was not 100% his fault? By taking responsbility, I mean more than uttering the words "I take responsibility." By taking responsbility, I also mean more than contending that although all of his primary justifications for the war turn out to have been based on faulty or misleading information, all this goes to prove that the war was the correct move in the first place.

ALL of his primary justifications? Why don't you list what you think they are and we can go line by line to see if the basis for your question is correct before we answer it.

 

[Gza]

I'm not sure that he was as "gung ho" as your suggesting. In fact, I personally think that weaponry was moved/hidden as a result of the time lapse between mentioning attacking and giving the many "chances" that were given.

A unilateral action without the support of the UN (or any other major country aside from britain) seems pretty gung ho to me.

 

[Gza]

Second, the faulty information sucked in the British too. So the idea that Bush was the only one misled is, well, misleading. As a President, you have to have a certain level of faith in information provided by your intelligence services. Sometimes they can let you down.

I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but a large part of Britains case against Iraq involving the WMDs, came from a plagerized document of a graduate student in California. This wholesale plagiarism was one of the many desperate, shameless attempts at pushing the coalition into war, when it was realized that after 12 years of intelligence gathering by the CIA, NSA, DIA, NRO, Israel's Mossad, Turkeys MIT, Britain's MI6 and GCHQ, defectors,
Kurds and the like, we still had zero(0) information on the purported link.

 

[Prometheus]

In fact, I personally think that weaponry was moved/hidden ...

Why don't you list your reasons for what you think and we can go line by line to see if the basis for your thinking is correct before we respond to it.

 

[FZ+]

In any case, the jury is still out on whether the UK government was sucked in by the oh so evil intelligence services. I mean, there is a rather obvious question, isn't there? Why was it that before the war, when the invasion was deeply controversial, and it was apparent that this was a major decision with major reprecussions, the government chose to react not by looking over its data more carefully (which should immediately show up page after page of reservations, and dissenting opinions, and so on), but by brushing it all under the carpet so that later on, they can pretend that they accidentally failed to read it properly?

 

[Prometheus]

Why was it that before the war, when the invasion was deeply controversial, and it was apparent that this was a major decision with major reprecussions, the government chose to react not by looking over its data more carefully (which should immediately show up page after page of reservations, and dissenting opinions, and so on), but by brushing it all under the carpet so that later on, they can pretend that they accidentally failed to read it properly?

Very well put.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Do you think that Bush is exonerated completely due to the errors in the intelligence that he received? Or, do you think that he should take responsibility for the errors that he made, even though it was not 100% his fault? By taking responsbility, I mean more than uttering the words "I take responsibility."

What exactly do you want him to do?

Keep in mind that the President is not going to say anything damaging to the US. While it may serve some people's political interests for the President to skewer himself publically (rightfully or not), that doesn't make it wise.

 

[loseyourname]

A unilateral action without the support of the UN (or any other major country aside from britain) seems pretty gung ho to me.

Spain isn't a major country?

 

[Gza]

Spain isn't a major country?

It may be a major country, but answer me this: how many Spanish troops are/were fighting in Iraq? Vocal support and physical support are two different things.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

This could spell a lot of trouble for Kerry if his opposition to Bush's middle east policy means that more prominent Jews, like Koch, turn their support to Bush.

Since when does anyone listen to Ed Koch?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Since when does anyone listen to Ed Koch?

Somebody must have listen to him, he was a three term Mayor of New York and a two term U. S. Congressman.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Somebody must have listen to him, he was a three term Mayor of New York and a two term U. S. Congressman.

Uhh, when, 20 years ago? I just think it's funny that we're resorting to quotes from Ed Koch as a way to show support for Bush.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Uhh, when, 20 years ago? I just think it's funny that we're resorting to quotes from Ed Koch as a way to show support for Bush.

Many of those same people that voted for him 20 years ago are now elder retirees living in South Florida.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Many of those same people that voted for him 20 years ago are now elder retirees living in South Florida.

HUH? What does that have to do with anything? And I might add, many of those same retirees living in Florida who you refer to are the ones who didn't get their votes counted in the last election...

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Bush won Florida by about 500 votes during the 2000 election. Recent polls suggest that Florida will once again be up for grabs. A Koch endorsement of Bush could persuade some of these former New York democrats, now Florida democrats to vote for Bush. If Bush can garner just 250 of these votes, it would mean a 500 vote swing for the republicans.