[Paleopsych] campaign

Tue Nov 2 01:42:27 UTC 2004

Michael's exigesis perfectly illustrates why I have a knot in my stomach 
about voting tomorrow. Bush's decisionmaking is suspect, Kerry's 
reliability is similarly suspect. What is a boy to do?

Michael Christopher wrote:

>>>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.
>
>  
>
Well, he said he committed atrocities, and he didn't. He said he threw 
the medals, and he didn't throw his. He almost certainly had a 
dishonorable discharge, but that has been hushed up. But what bothers me 
is the other issues. He used fear, undertainty, and doubt to get votes. 
I long for a leader who will use vision, inspiration, and commitment.

>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.
>  
>
Good point.

>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.
>
>Michael
>
>
>		
>__________________________________ 
>Do you Yahoo!? 
>Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
>www.yahoo.com 
> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20041101/54d6b8af/attachment.html>