[Paleopsych] campaign

Steve Hovland shovland at mindspring.com
Mon Nov 1 20:20:22 UTC 2004

Before the election the Democrats put up draft bills
as a political stunt.

After the election, if Bush wins, they will probably
not support a draft, so that the tar baby will belong
entirely to the Republicans.

If you read up on the troop issue you will find comments
to the effect that all of the active duty troops are either
in Iraq, on the way back from Iraq, or on the way to Iraq.  

The people who are in the Army and Marines are being
put through a meat grinder from which few of them are
likely to emerge intact.  I don't see too many white middle
class supporters of the war who are urging their kids to
sign up.

At one point during WWI the French troops marched into
the trenches baaing like sheep.  They knew they would
be slaughtered and there was nothing they could really
do about it.

At the moment 40,000 troops are marshalled in Bagdad
awaing the post-election assault on the 5,000 or so
insurgents estimated to be in Falluja.  This will be urban 
warfare of the worst sort, and hundreds of Americans
will probably be killed.

Steve Hovland

-----Original Message-----
From:	Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com]
Sent:	Monday, November 01, 2004 11:59 AM
To:	paleopsych at paleopsych.org
Subject:	[Paleopsych] campaign

>>RE: Bush lying. It is difficult for me to defend 
Bush since I don't like him at all, but I do not think
he has lied.<<

--I agree, I don't think Bush lied. I think he had
tunnel vision and participated in groupthink, because
he has trouble integrating criticism and isolates
himself in a group of "true believers" who are in a
bubble and don't get much feedback from reality.
That's not the same as deliberately lying. 

>>I admit to a dislike of Kerry that is probably over
the top, but it is clear to me that he has
consistently lied from day one. He lied about his 
war record, he lied saying we (most soldiers) had
committed atrocities, and today he lies about the
draft, social security, Iraq, and about Bush lying.<<

--Kerry did not lie about war atrocities. He testified
what he heard other soldiers saying, and their stories
were confirmed. The My Lai massacre was not an
isolated incident, and only one person was punished.
If we condemn Kerry for testifying about something
that was actually happening (he never, to my
knowledge, accused ALL soldiers of war crimes) then
surely we must condemn those who committed atrocities.

As for the draft, liberals may truly believe Bush will
reinstate the draft. Many on both sides believe it
will be necessary as the war on terror continues. Or
it could be political spin, like accusing Democrats of
wanting socialism. The line between spin and lying has
gotten thin, on both sides, and I think it's the
two-party system that is to blame. In order to win,
each side must demonize the other. I'm glad the
election is almost over, just so we don't have to
watch those smarmy attack ads.

Bush tends not to lie, but he does allow people around
him to distort his opponents' record and slander their
character. I believe Bush's weakness is not his own
integrity but that of the people around him. The only
people fired are those who criticize his policies,
while those who deliberately engage in unethical
campaigning are rewarded. If Bush were not in a
bubble, if he were not prone to groupthink, he'd be a
decent guy. If Kerry wins, we can only hope that he
keeps a wide enough circle of advisors that he doesn't
lock out good ideas and perpetuate bad ones.

>>Most humorous of all, he lied about his goose hunt! 
(He said, 'We all got geese' but there were only three
geese for four men.What a weird guy.)<<

--There's no reason for him to lie about that, he was
probably not paying attention to the guy who didn't
get a goose. I think if you're honest you'll find
similar errors by Bush. When Bush said he'd worked
with Congress to create the department of homeland
security, he forgot to mention he'd opposed it
originally. Does that compare with a missing goose?

The contrast principle is often used by marketing
consultants who advise political campaigns. Bush is
the "man of Christian integrity" while Kerry is the
"flip-flopper". That's branding, it's not reality, and
without the contrast, whichever candidate wins is
going to have to be judged on his results, not his
ability to slander the other guy.

Incidentally, I've seen a huge number of email rumors
about both candidates that were simply false, yet
believed by many. Along with the familiar Dan Quayle
quotes falsely attributed to Bush or Kerry, there was
the accusation that Kerry would ban the Bible, that
Bush used the wrong Bible verse (that one also
attributed to Kerry), that terrorists wanted Bush or
Kerry (who polled the terrorists??) and a mudslide of
out-of-context statements by both. I'll be SO glad
when this is over and we can get on with judging
leaders by their results rather than by their ability
to slander their opponent in attack ads.


Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 

paleopsych mailing list
paleopsych at paleopsych.org

More information about the paleopsych mailing list