Why I think Bush will be re-elected

Tom Dunne

As an Irish person living in the US, I have begun to watch the race for the White House out of sheer curiosity.

I can't stand Bush. I think he is a slithering, corrupt weasel. I don't really know what to make of Kerry. He is too middle-of-the-road. He doesn't seem to take a stance on anything. But it occured to me yesterday, while watching the various news channels, that he hasn't a hope in hell of getting back in, and here's why.

Bush seems to have every God-fearing, Nascar-watching, trailer-living white trash in the country in his pocket. At the other end of the spectrum, he seems to also have Lexus-driving, country-club going, bible-thumping conservative white American. He has the stereo-typical family package that the lower classes aspire to and the upper classes admire. He has equally slithery pals in the upper echelons of power that can be called upon whenever needed.

Kerry on the other hand - what does he have to offer? No apparent firm stance on anything, he seems to be pitching himself at the middle classes, and has a family package that just won't cut it at the White House. His wife, Teresa, was born in Mozambique of Portugese parents and has a "foreign" accent. She seems to be a highly independent woman who is not afraid to speak her mind (the "Shove it" incident). She just isn't White House material. She has none of the elegance of Hillary Clinton and she certainly won't be silenced like Laura Bush.

I really can't see the undecided voters picking Kerry, and let's face it - they are the ones who are going to swing this election.

mr_angry

Much as I hate to admit it, I agree entirely with that post. (And avatar!) I'm just hoping that Farenheit 911 has some kind of impact on the undecided voters.

sceptre

I tend to possibly agree with Tom's post as well (I'm on minimalist style so I've no idea what his avatar is)

Kerry appears to be a little vague at the moment and looks like he's afraid of losing votes. I've mentioned before that he's not given the poor people any reason to come out and vote for him. And realistically he's going to have to do that because the very rich are going to vote for Bush and so are the trailer park people. The middle classes aren't the only people left - there are plenty of poor people who don't live in trailer parks.

Kerry's probably going to take the entire north-east and the west coast, Bush is going to take almost all of the south and definitely all of the deep South (and Texas) as well as the mountain states. Polls indicate Edwards may not take his home state for Kerry. I've a feeling this one is going to be decided by the midwest and the north mid-west (basically everything surrounding Illinois on all sides except for east), Florida (which will probably be Bush again), Tennessee and Arizona - they were all tight runs last time and it looks like they'll be the same again. Bush will take more states, he'll take more districts (this one probably by a long way). I'd imagine Kerry will take the popular vote (especially as he's probably a shoe-in in NY and California). I reckon Kerry may still shave it (if he holds Pennsylvania - bg state, 6-7% gap) but it's going to be close. Any big gaffe or explosion (either kind) could kill him off.

mike65

It'll be close but Bush does'nt have it all in his pocket, the vote is 45/45 with 10% to play for - its anyones game at this point.

Mike.

garthv

Your an idiot.
If Bush gets re-elected its just goes to show how stupid America really is

Johnny Versace

Kerry is not likeable. He looks weird/untrustworthy/"upper class" (in my opinion) and I really don't like that.

Also, everything that comes out of his mouth just sounds... empty.

Bush obviously is a retard, but at least he believes in his retardness. He has opinions and takes a stance. Kerry is just an empty vessel.

I like John Edwards though. If the ballet was switched the democrats would have a much greater chance.

Why didn't Ted Kennedy or Ronald Reagan Junior run for president?

Hobbes

Bush + Kerry both belonged to the same rich boys club.

I hope Kerry gets in because I know how much of a fuktard Bush is. At least with Kerry there is hope he can do a better job.

arcadegame2004

I really can't see the undecided voters picking Kerry, and let's face it - they are the ones who are going to swing this election.

No the popular-vote won't decide it. It's the stupid Electoral-College that might defeat Kerry, as it gives disproportionate representation to the tiny Western states like South and North Dakota etc.

The charges that Kerry has no ideology are reminiscent of the charges made against Clinton and he won 2 terms. But to be fair he didn't have to worry about his rival's brother being in charge of counting the votes in Florida...:p

Why didn't Ted Kennedy or Ronald Reagan Junior run for president?

Ted Kennedy stood in the Democratic Party primaries in 1981 I think. I read somewhere that he left the race over a controversy surrounding a car crash in which a woman in the car with him was killed.

gandalf

Originally posted by Garth_Vader
Your an idiot.
If Bush gets re-elected its just goes to show how stupid America really is

FFS do you lot every read the charters NO PERSONAL INSULTS. Next time your banned !!!

gandalf

Thanks Tom I was in a reasonably good mood after escaping from work today and then I read your piece. It makes a lot of sense and I think that unless Kerry can grow a personality that Bush will be back in the White House. Then its god help America and the World.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Ted Kennedy stood in the Democratic Party primaries in 1981 I think. I read somewhere that he left the race over a controversy surrounding a car crash in which a woman in the car with him was killed.

Google for Chappaquiddick, you'll get all the info that way. Or Mary Jo Kopechne but Chappaquiddick is probably the handiest. He didn't quite leave the race over it in a Gary Hart type of way (after all, it happened in 1969, eleven years before he ran for the Democratic nomination) but despite his early strong performance in the race, it killed off his chances when the mud started flying in a serious way, though it's important to remember that he was running against the incumbent (Carter was looking for a second term). Carter easily won the nomination and then easily lost the election by a 10 to 1 margin in the electoral college (partly due to the Iran hostage crisis).

These days Ted is regarded as one of the more able Senators, his (past?) love for the bottle notwithstanding. Generally it's a reputation that's well-deserved (and there are plenty of Republicans who are scared witless of the guy on the senate floor) - he's been a strong worker on health-care and education issues.


As for Ronald Reagan Jr running, he may have accepted an invitation to speak at the DNC this year but he's got no political background whatever apart from being the son of someone who had. The closest he comes is bring on the board of the Creative Coalition which campaigns entertainers to participate in liberal causes. He's been a ballet dancer, magazine columnist and a TV presenter. He hasn't even been governor of Texas. He's also an atheist. No chance in hell of getting nominated, let alone elected.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Johnny Versace
Kerry is not likeable. He looks weird/untrustworthy/"upper class" (in my opinion) and I really don't like that.

Also, everything that comes out of his mouth just sounds... empty.

I kind of agree. Kerry does just look weird. Like one of the poorly animated background aliens in the new Star Wars flicks. On a slightly more substantive note, I've yet to hear any actual policy from the Kerry campaign.

Nevertheless he does seem to have the edge in electoral college terms at the moment (Rasmussen Reports has a running count going), but a three or four point national swing in either direction would probably win it.

Originally posted by Hobbes
Bush + Kerry both belonged to the same rich boys club.

I hope Kerry gets in because I know how much of a fuktard Bush is. At least with Kerry there is hope he can do a better job.

Agreed.

I watched 2 campaign events back to back on cspan while in the states last week.
Kerry was talking ad lib to ordinary americans in a small town in illinois,he was doing an excelent job explaining his policies on health,jobs and the economy and believe it or not he came across in my view as likeable and caring.

I think his personality needs to be shown more, its showing at the small town campaign events but not shining yet in the newsbite news shows.

Over to Bushes campaign event...
Auto cue.
80% drivel about the war on terror
10% dissing Kerry
10% inconsequential.

Oh and what I found extremely funny and telling was, there were a few spelling and grammar mistakes in the auto cue which made some sentences Bush spoke sound silly.
Of course he read them without even noticing.

Tom Dunne

Originally posted by Johnny Versace
Also, everything that comes out of his mouth just sounds... empty.

I couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by Johnny Versace
Bush obviously is a retard, but at least he believes in his retardness. He has opinions and takes a stance. Kerry is just an empty vessel.

And this is where the core of the problem lies. From speaking to the locals over here, those that are undecided seem to be swaying towards "better the devil you know".

Originally posted by Gandalf
Thanks Tom I was in a reasonably good mood after escaping from work today and then I read your piece

Sorry Gandalf

Bateman

In fairness, the polls seem to be calling it in a closer manner than you describe, Tom. Kerry must "have" someone if he ia consistently polling so high. I think Fahrenheit 9/11 will have a mixed impact. Hopefully people won't think all anti-war, anti-Bush people are as pretentious as Moore, but the validity of the film can't be knocked. More partisan political films would be nice.

I think Kerry is quite a bland, lifeless character, maybe this will change as the elections gets closer, and the heat really comes on.

ionapaul

It will be so much easier to call AFTER the presidential debates. Hopefully Kerry will be so well prepared that he can brush aside whatever devious 'off-the-cuff' or 'down-homey' lines Bush's speechwriters will have prepared for him....fuzzy math and the like.

I hope at some point the Dems really make a go of their different military records - Kerry was rich enough to avoid Vietnam, but didn't and received the medals to prove it (whatever about receiving medals for flesh wounds). And Bush has the gall to call himself a war president and landed on the carrier wearing that flight suit!

I wouldn't go as far as so many people these days in calling the American people 'idiots' for voting in Bush - every nation has voted in idiots, populists, and evil bastards...anyone want to 'arise and follow charlie' anymore? Isn't Michael Lowry a poll-topper TWICE since his owner's name was revealed?

chewy

what im hearing about about kerry's possiblites of winning is that kerry is as big business as anyone and alot of big business are backing him as seen by his fundraising, big corps backing him... they believe that too many people are being turned off by the neo-cons and they can get all the economic benefits and low taxes off kerry with with less public hassle also kerry wants 400,000 troops in iraq... which can only be done by conscription and kerry could get selective consrcription by pretending to rebut the draft...

shotamoose

Originally posted by chewy
kerry is as big business as anyone and alot of big business are backing him

Yeah, I hear he's in thrall to Big Ketchup

vibe666

according to farenheit 9/11 (and I'm not taking it as gospel) and a whole bunch of political analysts, bush lost the last election anyway, and he still managed to be president, so i don't think he'll let a little thing like whether he wins or loses determine if he stays in office for another 4 years.

vorbis

Kerry is indeed still pretty bland. He's getting upstaged at this own convention!
[ot]
A lot of recent studies have shown that Bush would have won the recount Gore asked for. Theres certainly no way you coudl definitivelt say he lost the last election.
[/ot]

TomF

Here's an interesting column in a U.S. magazine ("Esquire") by someone who seems to be very much a leftie in the U.S. (and I don't think he is an American Jew or an Israeli, and certainly not a "neo-conservative"). He probably sees Bush getting re-elected in November.

"The Case for George W. Bush
i.e., what if he's right?

by Tom Junod | Aug 01 '04"

"...
As easy as it is to say that we can't abide the president because of the gulf between what he espouses and what he actually does , what haunts me is the possibility that we can't abide him because of us—because of the gulf between his will and our willingness. What haunts me is the possibility that we have become so accustomed to ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that we find his call for decisive action an insult to our sense of nuance and proportion.

The people who dislike George W. Bush have convinced themselves that opposition to his presidency is the most compelling moral issue of the day. Well, it's not. The most compelling moral issue of the day is exactly what he says it is, when he's not saying it's gay marriage. The reason he will be difficult to unseat in November—no matter what his approval ratings are in the summer—is that his opponents operate out of the moral certainty that he is the bad guy and needs to be replaced, while he operates out of the moral certainty that terrorists are the bad guys and need to be defeated. The first will always sound merely convenient when compared with the second. Worse, the gulf between the two kinds of certainty lends credence to the conservative notion that liberals have settled for the conviction that Bush is distasteful as a substitute for conviction—because it's easier than conviction.
...."

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?item_id=505604&pageId=1

shotamoose

TomF wrote:

he operates out of the moral certainty that terrorists are the bad guys and need to be defeated.

No he doesn't. Where did you get that idea?

Yoda

Johnny Versace wrote:

Kerry is not likeable. He looks weird/untrustworthy/"upper class" (in my opinion) and I really don't like that.

My heavens, it's this kind of vapid, superficial, popularity criteria that's really a problem in the world we live in. Were you not educated to think, say, about issues?

TomF

I just spotted this column "Why Bush is going to win." It is written by a man named Zev Chafets, whose bio says he is a former resident of Israel (and certainly makes it look as though he's an American Jew), so his opinion is probably going to be automatically rejected by many, but the column is interesting. The first paragraph about Pauline Kael puts me in mind of many in Ireland who "don't know anyone who supports Bush". Perhaps it is the Irish view of the U.S. as being Boston, New York City and San Francisco that allows this delusion to flourish.

"In 1972, The New Yorker's movie critic, Pauline Kael, won herself a place in political lore by expressing astonishment at the Republicans' 49-state landslide victory. 'How could that be?' she demanded. 'I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon.'
I don't live in such a rarified world, but most of my friends are voting for John Kerry. And I imagine that a good many will be shocked when President Bush wins in November."
...

"Why Bush is going to win

Kerry's a captive of the overbearing, elitist wing of his party"

"In 1972, The New Yorker's movie critic, Pauline Kael, won herself a place in political lore by expressing astonishment at the Republicans' 49-state landslide victory. 'How could that be?' she demanded. 'I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon.'
I don't live in such a rarified world, but most of my friends are voting for John Kerry. And I imagine that a good many will be shocked when President Bush wins in November."
...

"Boston, with its flag-waving and saluting and balloon-blowing was supposed to be a commercial for this new and superior brand of politics. But Americans are expert TV watchers. A lot of them voted with their remotes. Those who did watch weren't impressed. The Democrats' much anticipated post-convention bump turned into a thud. George McGovern got one of those in 1972.

Kerry now has 90 days to convince voters that a Bush victory in November would be, as his wife put it in Milwaukee on Monday, 'four more years of hell.'

The problem is, most Americans don't regard their lives as 'hell' or Bush as Satan. The economy, after all, is not really in a Great Depression. In fact, it's doing pretty well. Iraq isn't Vietnam, and won't be unless there's a draft. The Islamic jihad against America isn't Bush's fault, either. A candidate who insists otherwise is bound to strike voters as detached from reality."
...

"Right now the polls look even. But that's an optical illusion. The President has a Republican convention coming up and the power of incumbency to shape events between now and November. In other words, he's way ahead.

Kerry is a weak campaigner. Barring some kind of national disaster, his best shot is the debates. Democratic true believers think he'll kill Bush, one on one. That's what they thought about Al Gore, too.

Calling a presidential race in August is risky, especially a race that's supposedly close. But no guts, no glory. Bush will beat Kerry in a walk. If I'm right, you read it here first. If not, well, even Pauline Kael got it wrong once in a while."

Batbat

you kidding?, anyone but bush, anyone is better then that monster, Kerry does seem useless but he is not bush thats enough for me

Hobbes

I just spotted this column "Why Bush is going to win."

Except that he is false in a number of points. The econmy is not great, a large number of jobs have moved off shore and are not coming back. Oil is at an all time high and isn't expected to go down (until Saudi make good on their promise to Bush), the $ is in the toilet.

He lied about the war in Iraq, he has people living in fear unable to conduct normal everyday lives, he war on terror is useless, Iraq has turned into nightmare and the US are under constant attack there shipping back numerous dead and wounded. The world is a more dangerous place and more people in the world see the US (and Americans by extension) as a threat to the world.

Lactating Shark

I think Bush probably will win, but heres another reason I hope he wont:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4921.shtml

I thought it was a joke at first but it appears not to be...

bonkey

I find it hilarious to see TomF still at the old "oh, and here's another leftie article which explains why the leftie candidate will lose" line of propaganda.

The simple truth at the moment is that anyone who claims to know who will win is kidding themselves. The voters have already polarised themselves far more early and far more distinctly than in any election in US history. This is why there are no big moves and shakes - the number of undecided voters is at an incredibly low level...especially considering that the election is 3 months off.

Unless there is something genuinely earth-shattering, this will go to the wire. It is - in my opinion - nothing but a sign of either desperation or unfounded hope to say otherwise...and the pundits trying to convince us that there will be a huge swing one way or the other from the current situation really seem to be living in a different reality to the majority of the electorate.

jc

MeatProduct

bonkey wrote:

...and the pundits trying to convince us that there will be a huge swing one way or the other from the current situation really seem to be living in a different reality to the majority of the electorate.
jc

I could certainly see a big "terrorist" attack on US soil swinging a lot of votes.

Nick

MeatProduct

Lactating Shark wrote:

I think Bush probably will win, but heres another reason I hope he wont:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4921.shtml

I thought it was a joke at first but it appears not to be...

I've read that also but I would have thought it's a bit more shcking that such a spastic is president. All we have now is a depressed spastic, no big change in relative terms.

Nick

elivsvonchiaing

They never found JFK's "magic" bullet - this was the one actually fired from the grassy knoll - it disappeared - hopefully it entered a worm-hole in space time to re-emerge in November, 2004. Where, I can't say - but inside Bush would be nice!

The way the guy is going so far it's likely to materialise on his foreskin- circumcising him while standing next to Kerry -only to kill Kerry.

I he does get re-elected (legitimately this time), and there is another 911. I'll fly over to the US. to toast marshmallows on the smoking ruins -'cos I will have zero sympathy this time.

TomF

The columns conceding the coming US presidential election to George W. Bush are beginning to appear more and more often now and here's a new one. I only wish Paddy Powers had better odds so I could make some real money on all the bettors who would be willing to put their money where their mouths are!

WHY KERRY WILL LOSE THE ELECTION

"John Kerry will lose this election, and he will do so decisively. The defeat will go down as perhaps the only thing this candidate has ever done decisively.
...
Following the [Democratic Party's national convention], polls were all over the place: Some showed no postconvention increase for Kerry at all, and others had a bounce so small it was within the margin of error. But the most seriously devastating of all them all was the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. In that survey of likely voters, President Bush led Kerry 50 percent to 46 percent. Ouch -- that's gotta hurt. A Newsweek survey did show some good news for Kerry, who picked up a few points in that vote. The bad news? It was the most dreadful showing of any postconvention bounce in the decades since the newsmagazine began measuring such shifts.

The Associated Press reported that its analysts say Bush is leading in electoral votes today. The weeks following the convention should be the high point of any candidate's campaign, so that's another sad marker.
...
No war president has ever lost an election in the United States, and it's unlikely this will be the case now. Until recently, the Democrats uttered a great deal of rhetorical propaganda about their contention that Bush 'lied' about the war of liberation in Iraq: He lied about intelligence; he lied about WMDs. He lied, lied, lied. Everyone from the head of the Democratic Party to Michael Moore has delivered this mantra for the last three years.

Now that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission has come out with its final report, which vindicated the president, you don't hear that much about lies anymore. The report says there were no lies. Bad intelligence, yes; lies, no. Unfortunately, much of the damage has been done, as Bush's 'lies' have now become an urban legend, ingrained in the minds of many."

by Adam Sparks
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/08/09/asparks.DTL

Tomf
You must be joking if you think the article you linked is unbiased.
Just look at the rubbish in it regarding Kerry in Vietnam.
It's like linking to an Phoblacht to support the idea that if there was a referendum in NI in the morning, there would be a majority in favour of a united Ireland.

It reminds me of the fox coverage of the democratic convention.
When Jimmy Carter was at the height of his lambasting of the idiot Bush, they cut to their panel to discuss how bad the convention was going for the democrats :rolleyes: when all the other networks continued with the live feed.

Later that opinionated self righteous Bush supporter lady fox presenter( whose name escapes me like the value I put on her opinions ) asked one of Kerrys vietnam buddies did he resent the fact that Kerry only spent 4 months in Vietnam whereas he( the man she interviewed ) was there for 18 months
He replied saying no because Kerry had to go home after taking 2 bullets to save Kerrys friends life.
The self righteous presenter never flinched and moved on to ask if any of his colleagues thought it was cynical that Kerry was using his vietnam record in the campaign...
Not a word of analysis on Bushes comparative lack of capabilities and "war" record.
Theres more of that shoite every day from people who want Bush returned for no apparent reason.... or worthwhile reason that I've heard them say.

Spacedog

it'd be funny if Kerry turned out to be the next Hitler, starts world war 3 and destroys the world with nukes. (having a bit a 'Dead Zone' moment). Still be better than Bush though! he'd have my vote still

Better to die slowly in the bitter frost of an eternal nuclear winter than listen to that 'tard for another 4 years.

MeatProduct

I think the only way the world is gonna get unfuked is if Bush gets in again and people get so upset about that that it causes a revolt and a whole new system of government is set up. Naturally Bush gets gang raped in the process.

Nick

mrhappy42

http://shop3.kerrygear.com/Merchant2/merchant_mvc_screen_prod_product_code_k973_category_code_acc.htm

show your support and get drunk at the same time :-) weeeeeee

Hobbes

TomF wrote:

The columns conceding the coming US presidential election to George W. Bush are beginning to appear more and more often now and here's a new one.

Strange.. because when I go to google news and type Bush Leads Race, most of the news stories are about how Kerry is in the lead.

Btw, the muppet who gave me negative rep for the last post.. it did nothing to my score. That is how much your opinion is worth. You have a problem with what I post say so either in a comment or in a reply.

chill

TomF wrote:

The columns conceding the coming US presidential election to George W. Bush are beginning to appear more and more often now

Eh... wrong. As someone who reads all the major US newspapers and quite a lot of US news TV, there are very very few columns that come anywhere near expressing this view.
Kerry is ahead in most polls, if slightly. The last minute break aways goes the challenger's way and the economy is showing increasing signs of remaining dead in the water especialy where jobs are concerned.
The truth is this election will be neck and neck all the way and it will all come down to two things - whether Bush can frighten the voters sufficiently, and who gets out the vote better.
I suspect that the Democrats wil be far more motivated to vote this time than the Republicans and my preduiction is Kerry by three points.

Hey...!! Can we somehow start a prediction tab for the election now ? and everyone pick their best guess at the result and the percentage spread ?

elivsvonchiaing

MeatProduct wrote:

I think the only way the world is gonna get unfuked is if Bush gets in again and people get so upset about that that it causes a revolt and a whole new system of government is set up. Naturally Bush gets gang raped in the process.

Nick

I've only once watched a porno video (at a stag details boring). Bush being gang-raped I would class as art and well hell - just wish I could pre-order that!

Sadly I think he'll get in again and gang-rape us and the earth :mad:

vorbis

I see Bush winning unless Kerry finds some actual policies he can use. Simply not being Bush is going to get tiring to the electorate by the time November comes around. Also whats with the ludricous comments about world destruction. Its quite puzzling that irish people are losing their grip on reality over a foreign head of state.

MeatProduct

vorbis wrote:

Its quite puzzling that irish people are losing their grip on reality over a foreign head of state.

Could you put that into a form that makes sense or that somehow applies to our current dimension.

Thanks,

Nick

ixoy

I'm afraid our old detestable pal will get in, based on Kerry's sheer dullness. However, it is a bit hard to tell. Now given that we're fairly certain a lot of the states were almost unconstestable (NE to Kerry, South nearly all to Bush), has there been any polls that canvas opinion in the key swing states and get a real idea of what's involved and who is in the lead? Given the way the electorate system works in the U.S. all thes polls about X% of voters are pretty meaningless.

vorbis

what I mean Meatproduct is that some people are getting highly melodramatic over an election that irish people have no input in. I just though that it was pretty amusing.

MeatProduct

vorbis wrote:

what I mean Meatproduct is that some people are getting highly melodramatic over an election that irish people have no input in. I just though that it was pretty amusing.

We should have input since this election could spell the end for our way of life! Seriously!

Nick

vorbis

that wasn't melodramatic at all.
Bush isn't going to end our way of life.

Hobbes

vorbis wrote:

what I mean Meatproduct is that some people are getting highly melodramatic over an election that irish people have no input in. I just though that it was pretty amusing.

Yea, it is even more amusing when that head of state has the ability to totally fuk up the world and you never got to vote for him.

MeatProduct

vorbis wrote:

that wasn't melodramatic at all.
Bush isn't going to end our way of life.

Well on the weekend I put off a trip to the countryside since petrol costs so much now. Can you tell me that that is not affecting my way of life? Bush increased the price of oil. Bush has already changed peoples lives in many countries by killing family members. Bush does not heal the world Vorbis, he is a sickness, a biblical plague.

Nick

vorbis

MeatProduct wrote:

Well on the weekend I put off a trip to the countryside since petrol costs so much now. Can you tell me that that is not affecting my way of life? Bush increased the price of oil. Bush has already changed peoples lives in many countries by killing family members. Bush does not heal the world Vorbis, he is a sickness, a biblical plague.

Nick

um the main reason for rising fuel prices is the massive increase in demand for oil from China year on year. The Iraqi war is also responsible but volume production is not hugely different now than to before the war. The faxt is that if the demand from China increases at its current rate then prices are going to stay high regardless of Iraq.

I think the demonisation of Bush by some people outside the US will actually hurt Kerry. From an American perspective it could be taken as American bashing.

Also Hobbes why should you have a vote in the US elections if you're not a citizen of the US. By the same token should you be allowed vote for the french oremier? After all some of his policies might affect Ireland.

bonkey

vorbis wrote:

Also Hobbes why should you have a vote in the US elections if you're not a citizen of the US.

I think you may be making an assumption about Hobbes' citizenship there?

jc

Lactating Shark

vorbis wrote:

what I mean Meatproduct is that some people are getting highly melodramatic over an election that irish people have no input in. I just though that it was pretty amusing.

1. Bush proclaims himself the leader of the "free world"
2. I live in the free world (supposedly)

Shouldnt I therefore get a vote?

vorbis

usually that quote is that "America is the leader (i.e. leading nation) of the free world". As members or another nation within the free world we vote for our own leaders.

I thought by the way that hobbbes phrased his comment ("you never got to vote for him" that he wasn't American.