Bush Wins!

[CdnRepublican]

No more insane than Hillary Clinton running. Kerry apologists can spin all they want. The democratic party offers very little of substance. Even Clinton yesterday admitted that.

Kerry has no firm policy ideas and no firm beliefs. He lied about his Vietnam war record and contrary to Black Dog's propaganda never released his military records. He released only few files.

Dave Eberhart and Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry has quickly reneged on his promise to release his full military and medical records to public scrutiny.

Kerry emphatically told Tim Russert on NBC's “Meet the Press” last weekend that “people” could come on down to his campaign headquarters to eyeball his full file of military records.

“They’re available to you to come and look at. People can come and see them at headquarters and take a look at them,” Kerry told Russert.

Russert had asked Kerry if he would release his complete file, as President Bush did after Democrats raised questions about his service in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

Kerry shot back to Russert’s request, “They are” – indicating the records were already released.

But Kerry has not realeased all his military records, only a small portion, and placed strict limitations on their examination.

This week several individuals and organizations, including NewsMax, followed up on Kerry’s open invitation.When the media asked to take advantage of Kerry’s offer, however, Kerry's press spokesman Michael Meehan announced that the only records available would be those already released to the Boston Globe.

But the famously pro-Kerry Globe has pointed out that Kerry has never disclosed his full military and medical file to it.

The Democrats lost on a number of issues;

-Leadership -- there is little doubt Kerry would not improve on the Bush doctrine and might even withdraw prematurely from Iraq

-Naive belief in the UNO - many Americans are bright enough to know the UNO is useless - Kerry's Wilsonianism goes down badly in age of terror

-Taxes - Kerry is not credible as a fiscal conservative. A liberal lawyer from Mass. Come on.

-Protectionism - Canada should be happy Bush won. Kerry would have made trade more difficult not less. He made this very clear on the stump as he tried to buy votes in Ohio.

Bush won on values and leadership. This is refreshing after the MTV, Pop centric, Leadership-Light world of the Clintons.

Even with lying exit polls, a biased anti-Bush media and CNN spinning day and night the Democrats could not beat a man who had to deal with the Clinton Economic meltdown; 9-11; 2 wars and increased global competition.

Bush's victory is rather remarkable no matter how you analyse it.

[CdnRepublican]

Rebuttal to Black Dog's economic misinformation. This is another reason why the democrats lost - their marketing information never collides with reality.

Black Dog says:

According the to Bureau of Economic Analysis, personal income grew 3.5 percent under Bush, 0.5 less than under Clinton. Meanwhile, median income has declined by $1,535 since Bush took office , or 3.4 percent. As well, the number of people living below the official poverty line increased by 14 per cent under Bush, while the employment-to-population ratio has plummeted under Bush's tenure from 64.4 in 2000 to 62.3 in 2003

Wrong:

-Forbes Magazine: "During Clinton's first 3.5 years, real disposable personal income rose by 10.4%. Over a comparable period under Bush, it rose by 9.3%"

Hardly a large gap. And it is an increase not a decrease as Black Dog says.

-Poverty; 12.5 % of Americans live in poverty - down from 25 % in 1950 - and 12.5 % is about the range over the past 15 years. The 12.5 % in 2004 is the lower than the rate in the mid-late 1990s. Governments measure poverty by your paycheque not assets. This is absurd. I could own 2 homes, have dividend income, but no job and be declared 'poor'. Any analysis of those in poverty state that 1/2 own their own homes and 3/4 own amenities ranging from cars to tv's. The poor in the US live on average in more living space than the AVERAGE person does in Europe. So what is poor then ?

Poverty Level over the last 15 years, regardless of race:

1989 12.8%

1990 13.5%

1991 14.2%

1992 14.8%

1993 15.1%

1994 14.5%

1995 13.8%

1996 13.7%

1997 13.3%

1998 12.7%

1999 11.9%

2000 11.3%

2001 11.7%

2002 12.1%

2003 12.5%

-Employment rates. The unemployment rate is the lowest in 25 years. The employment rate has not dropped but gone up. The number of American workers is at an all-time high of 138.5 million, a level never before attained in U.S. history. There is no source proof that employment has gone down. As well according to Household surveys and the BLS 2.5 million jobs have been added since Bush took office.

Kerry's bases his claim that today's jobs pay $9,000 less that jobs that were lost on averages calculated by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, but even EPI's numbers don't back up what Kerry says. The EPI computes averages for a few broad industries, not a comparison of specific jobs lost compared to new jobs. No such figures exist. And as we showed in one of our articles, comparing a larger number of job categories -- accounting for 154 different types of work within industries -- produces a finding that contradicts Kerry's claim. Those figures show higher-paying occupations growing faster than lower-paying occupations.

http://www.factcheck.org/article298m.html

One of the reasons Kerry lost the campaign is his use of bogus stats. He tried to make the economy look like it is in terrible shape - it is not. GDP growth, productivity, corporate profit growth, and export numbers are all up way above historical means.

Lying about the state of the economy makes good politics but bad reading.

-

[Guest eureka]

You should not read numbers until you can understand their import.. For instance, you seem to think that all is well when the poverty rate goes up close to a percentage point under Bush.

That represents a couple of million more American citizens driven to poverty by the Bush doctrine.

It seems not to have penetrated your Republican head that the increase has taken place since the end of the Bush recession. Does that tell you anything?

As with other indicators, you are way off base. Median income has indeed declined under Bush - check the Census Bureau for one source. Job creation has fallen below the need. Unemployment has risen. GDP growth has slowed again after a stuttering recovery from the Bush induced recession.

All is not well with the economy of a sick country.

[Tawasakm]

I know a little about psychology. Because of this I would like to make some comments on IQ.

First of all it shoulded be noted that IQ tests are not used to measure a broad concept of intelligence and to predict performance in a broad range of activities. The IQ test was designed to "accurately measure differences in future academic performance." (Psychology: The Adaptive Mind by James Nairne). Psychological tests are judged according to their validity (how well they measure what they are supposed to measure). The IQ test does an accurate job of measuring what it is supposed to.

However intelligence is a much broader concept then an IQ test is capable of capturing. A good defintion of intelligence is "an internal capacity or ability that accounts for individual differences in mental test performance and allows us to adapt to ever-changing environments" (same book as before). In fact the concept of intelligence is contested and debated within the psychological community. Some view it as a single capacity some as a range of capacities. Some see all these capacities as being linked (to one degree or another) by a common factor while others do not.

Before I let myself get side tracked I should try and actually make my point here. A psychologist would not use an IQ test as an indicator of job performance, or sporting ability (some models include athletic ability as a kind of intelligence) and so on and so forth. There are other contributing factors that determine success in those areas. An academically brilliant individual may, in fact, have difficulties performing practical tasks.

Moreover most IQ tests (sensibly) are deviation IQ tests. By definition, " an intelligence score that is derived from determining where your performance sits in an age-based distribution of test scores." (You guessed it - same book again.) I don't actually know their ages but unless they fall into the same age distribution comparing the scores can be misleading. In a deviation test your score is scaled according to all the other scores - with 100 being the average. Basically if I have an IQ of 120 (which it isn't) and someone ten years older then me has an IQ of 130 it's quite possible that I actually scored higher then him in the test. But our results were scaled according to a different group of scores.

So please don't read too much into IQ scores which, if I read this right, are only being extrapolated in the first place.

Incidentally an IQ of 130 or above is considered gifted.

About 68% of people should fall between 85 and 115.

[CdnRepublican]

The US economy will grow at 4 % - higher than the 3 % in Canada. It is certainly not sick.

Productivity will be 4 % this year vs. 1.5 % in Canada.

The average US wage is 20 % above the Canadian.

The average US net income after tax is 30%+ on average higher than in Canada.

More Americans work now than ever before in their history.

The Clinton economic bubble and 9-11 literally costed the US millions of jobs.

Their economy is far from sick - in fact it is so strong they are running a current account deficit importing goods from across the globe.

Consumer Net Assets reached $14 Trillion which is the highest ever. Household debt payments remain at 14 % which is the historical mean average.

I am not saying that the US is nirvana - but their economy is stronger and more diversified than Canada's and their productivity rate ensures a higher standard of living than Canada's.

Emotionalism might be satisfying, but so is change for the better.

[Cartman]

Maybe we should remember that they have a much larger population. I suspect that on paper, China looks like heaven right now too.

[The Terrible Sweal]

No you are utterly wrong.  Bush is perceived as a LEADER.

A LEADER Bush may be, but is he a good leader? Two examples from the animal world: Goats and Mares.

Mules will follow a mare whereever she goes, and sheep will follow a goat. However, a mare leading mules can be observed to take their welfare into account, selecting safe paths and ensuring they all stick together. A goat leading sheep pays no mind to the capabilities or needs of the sheep, leading them into things the goat may survive but that the sheep will not.

The American people who apparently are a lot smarter than most Cdns, saw all [Kerry's alleged mistakes] and said no thanks.

The oddity is that so many Americans fail to see Bush's numerous mistakes and deficiencies, or to give them proper weight. Bush's mistakes and deficiencies are dire, and go well beyond anything you can pin on Kerry.

[Big Blue Machine]

Bush isn't a strong leader but he's better than Kerry.

[caesar]

morals and religous beliefs that the majority of Americans value.

Morals and religion, my butt. Bush does not represent any decent morals nor the teachings of any church I attended.

Religion does not advocate killing innocent victims nor does it expect you to treat those who are different than the majority as outcasts. Nor does it advocate everyone packing a gun. The Christianity I learned was: Love they brother. Turn the other cheek. As for abortions; I would refer that people used proper methods to avoid unwanted pregnancies but do we want young scared girls back running to backyard illegal abortionist or attempting to do the abortion themselves as they did before. That is why they were legalized in the first place.

[CdnRepublican]

Bush won a clear mandate by increasing his votes by 9 million - only 18 % of that increase is due to evangelicals - the rest is broad based support and most people voted for values and leadership. People in an age of terror want leadership, aggressive military action and a concrete set of policies that view terror in its horrific reality. They don't want Kerryesque 'global tests', they are tired of Kofi Anan and UNO corruption, they find it sickening that the terrorist Arafat is feted as a hero, and they find it senseless that terrorist acts are relegated by Democrats including Clinton and Kerry to 'criminal investigations.' They also grow weary of rhetoric from self proclaimed hollywood pundits and Michael Moore-George Soros types that America is to blame.

Even in California where Bush lost 55-45 he won many counties with 70 % of the vote - he lost the rich upper class counties that have time and money to sniffle that their good fortune means that all other Americans are stupid and should follow their hollow oratory.

Christian values and Western Enlightenment values have to be defended. You don't defend civilisation by Clintonian strategems of loving the enemy more, being more sensitive to root causes or not retaliating when the WTC is bombed in '93 or hundreds die in the '98 embassy bombings.

Peace is only achieved through strength. It is uttterly mindboggling how the Left and most Cdns have no comprehension of recent modern history and its lessons. But then again in the Post modern world, history is relative and meaningless. At least that is what the Cdn liberal left and the Democrats support.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Bush isn't a strong leader but he's better than Kerry.

Can you add some content to that analysis? In particular, how can someone who:

-has created a truly monstrous fiscal hole,

-presided over the worst terrorist attack in US history,

-launched a war of aggression on false premises,

-undermined international law and order,

-alienated allies,

-weakened the constitution,

-deepened plutocracy,

-curried favor with and supported dictatorial regimes,

-explored and displayed the limits of US military power,

-caged people without due process, and

-allowed/encouraged the US armed forces to descend into depravity

be better than someone (e.g. Kerry) who has not done any of these things?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Christian values and Western Enlightenment values have to be defended.

Incompatible objectives.

[Black Dog]

Bush won a clear mandate by increasing his votes by 9 million - only 18 % of that increase is due to evangelicals - the rest is broad based support and most people voted for values and leadership. People in an age of terror want leadership, aggressive military action and a concrete set of policies that view terror in its horrific reality. They don't want Kerryesque 'global tests', they are tired of Kofi Anan and UNO corruption, they find it sickening that the terrorist Arafat is feted as a hero, and they find it senseless that terrorist acts are relegated by Democrats including Clinton and Kerry to 'criminal investigations.' They also grow weary of rhetoric from self proclaimed hollywood pundits and Michael Moore-George Soros types that America is to blame.

A perfect summary of the kind of rhetoric peddled to Bush's base: the "self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport-ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong'."

I'd have no problem with Bush (and indeed, would indulge in a bit of schadenfrude at the prospect of the American people getting the kind of "leader" they deserve), were it not for the fact that the U.S. is intent on exporting whatever reactionary madness has seized them to the rest of the world. I feel like it's 1936 all over again.

[Black Dog]

Christian values and Western Enlightenment values have to be defended.

Ironic, then, that one would endorse the bigotry and fear of the Christian right over true Christian values of tolerance and forgiveness and elightenment ideals of egalitarianism and equality. Ineed, it's becoming abundantly clear that those who argue for Bush based on "values" lack a fundamental understanding of what those values are actually supposed to be.

[CdnRepublican]

Christianity expresses values far exceeding your simple definition which is marxist of 'egalitarianism'. Christianity preached separation of powers; individual responsibility; living in the here and now; inquiry; equality before the law; and equality of opportunity. The last 2 values DO NOT mean egalitarianism. You can have vast differences between people but institutional equality. Christianity is not monolithic. There are various sects that interpret the gospel and its values in different ways. This is far more meaningful than Islam where the only schism is over the Prophet's blood lines. There are very few Christians that would equate equality in the biblical sense with Socialist egalitarianism. Not even Lenin would have had the gall to make that erroneous dialectic connection.

Western civilisation which has given even fools the right to express their opinions is worth defending. If you don't believe so, move to Iran or North Korea. If you are so certain that the West is not worthwhile why are you here ? Maybe to feed off of the efforts of others ? Snotty liberalism at its most mediocre.

[Cartman]

Western civilisation which has given even fools the right to express their opinions is worth defending.

Agreed. Falwell and the Moral Majority for instance.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/

Christianity expresses values far exceeding your simple definition which is marxist of 'egalitarianism'. Christianity preached separation of powers; individual responsibility; living in the here and now; inquiry; equality before the law; and equality of opportunity.

http://falwell.com/?a=p&content=1076266796

Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., has introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56) as a proposed constitutional amendment, which will remove the definition of marriage from the reach of all legislatures and courts permanently.

As long as it is only permanent in the US and not Canada. Oops. Falwell's petition mentions Canada too.

I am greatly concerned over recent Canadian and American liberal court rulings in favor of homosexual "marriage", the legalization of sodomy, and other actions damaging the traditional family.

Religion knows no boundaries.

[CdnRepublican]

Your post expresses nothing. Western civilisation is a confluence of ideas animated in part by Judeo-Christian precepts. Are you suggesting that these values are to be equated with Jerry Falwell or other uncouth practitioners of fraud ? If so it is a very foolish and rather ignorant association that is being made. I don't go to Church for instance, but milllions of people like me do believe in a framework of morality and activity that has nothing to do with Falwell or with terrorists like Bin Laden for that matter.

Christianity is an embedded and important part of the Western experience and the West in total must be defended. I doubt that one can deny the usefulness to the West of its primary religious doctrine. To do so would be to deny one of the great motivators of the West's superiority in the modern world.

[Cartman]

Would you have me ignore Falwell's attempts to change the law? He helped Bush get elected and the Republicans now have a significant amount of power after the election. The amendment he is trying to implement would be relatively permanent. As they say, "from the reach of all legislatures and courts permanently." This is over the top and cannot be ignored...that would be ignorant. :angry:

[Black Dog]

Western civilisation which has given even fools the right to express their opinions is worth defending.

Your posts are certainly evidence of that.

If you don't believe so, move to Iran or North Korea. If you are so certain that the West is not worthwhile why are you here ? Maybe to feed off of the efforts of others ? Snotty liberalism at its most mediocre

Of course, since nuanced thinking is beyond your abilities, I'll spell it out: I *heart* Christian ideals of mercy and generosity and Western enlightenment ideals of secular humanism, individual rights and the equality of all humanity. Your mistake is equating those values with those espoused by George Bush and the reactionary religious establishment that pulls his strings. In efect, you've merely co-opted the language in some twisted manner of Orwellian doublespeak.

To do so would be to deny one of the great motivators of the West's superiority in the modern world.

I knew my old sig would come in handy:

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do. --Samuel P. Huntington

[CdnRepublican]

Your post makes little sense. The religious right voted 80-20 Bush over Kerry. About 60 % of the 4 million Evangelicals voted. About 1.6 mn voted therefore for Bush. Data that is publicly available is pretty clear that the extra or other 7.4 million votes that GW received were based in part on values and leadership. Very few of these people would accept your stigmatism that values = the extreme religious right. There is nothing to base such a statement on, other than prejudice.

As for Huntington's comments i guess he forgot; the scientific revolution; the enlightenment; the renaissance; the industrial revolution and the information revolution. I suppose that Russian, Chinese, Arabic, African and Indian histories are peaceful, quiescent, full of concord and amity with nary a war or butchery to be found. Economic development and scientific advancement will of course translate into higher war making capacity.

And so what ?

Would we be better off under the heal of the Communists ? Or the Arabs ?

Obviously not, so that comment from Huntington is irrelevant and inconsequential and has no relationship to the post.

[Black Dog]

Your post makes little sense. The religious right voted 80-20 Bush over Kerry. About 60 % of the 4 million Evangelicals voted. About 1.6 mn voted therefore for Bush. Data that is publicly available is pretty clear that the extra or other 7.4 million votes that GW received were based in part on values and leadership. Very few of these people would accept your stigmatism that values = the extreme religious right. There is nothing to base such a statement on, other than prejudice.

Ogf course they wouldn't. But thee's no denying that "values" in the political context is shorthand for a certain set of beliefs, namely: pro-religion, anti-abortion, anti-gay etc. That may not necessarily be "extreme religious right" but they are beliefs that contradict the ideals of enlightenment though upon which the U.S. was founded.

As for Huntington's comments i guess he forgot; the scientific revolution; the enlightenment; the renaissance; the industrial revolution and the information revolution.

All of which were made possible by the west's superiority in the realm of force: the imperialism that fueled the industrial revolution is an example.

I suppose that Russian, Chinese, Arabic, African and Indian histories are peaceful, quiescent, full of concord and amity with nary a war or butchery to be found

The relative peacefulness of those societies is irrelevant, as the west cannot make a similar claim. But all of those societies were, at one time or another, advanced for their time and civilization: India pre-raj was a thriving pre-industrial society, the Mid East the very cradle of human civilization, whle ancient China produced some of the earliest human scientific advancements. All collided with the west and, confronted with the west superior war-making prowess, fell into the depths of poverty and defeat. Huntington's quote is entirely apt (I certainly seldom agree with the man, butI'll trust his analysis over yours any day of the week).

[caesar]

To do so would be to deny one of the great motivators of the West's superiority in the modern world.

Hmm Hitler thought blond blue eye germans were superior too????????

[CdnRepublican]

This is ludricous. The capitalist system and its variants have done more to help the 'poor' than any system in world history. No other system has generated the wealth and appliances to help the non-elite like the market based system we employ today.

Any study which looks at the so-named rich over 2 generations notices the upward mobility that permeates western liberalism. You can move up in life - you can also fall down. None of the oriental philosophies has ever constructed a system to benefit those with talent, energy or allowed the poor to move into the ranks of the rich.

Comparing progress and scientific advancement with Naziism is fatuous. The Western enlightenment tradition has nothing to do with fascism. It is opposed to totalitarian statism. Western society has benefited mankind and especially those posting on this site, regardless of what leftist pro Castro, pro Arafat think tanks state. To compare our Western world with oriental despotism or fascist tyranny is to display the insanity embedded in Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore.

[ceemes]

There will be a great wailing and crying because of the Bush victory...but it will come from the mothers who will lose their sons and daughters to Bush's Holy Crusade against the world.

The only thing this election proves is that over half the American electoric actually like being lied to, having their jobs and futures shipped oversea, watching the value of their dollar take a kick in the nuts, seeing their national debt skyrocket upwards promising to all but bancrupt their grandkids future, and endless wars in foreign lands to chew up their kids.

Kerry may not of been the greatest choice, but he would of been better then Bush..hell, even Bozo the Clown would of been a better choice the Shrub.....

If this election proves anything at all, its that the dumbing down of the American population is all but complete....four more years of Bush and the process should be done......

[caesar]

Bush wins; the world loses I hope it survives. the world will NOT be a better place after this return to barbarism. The USA will be much worse off morally and financially. This will not protect America from terrorism; it fuels the flames.