shovland at mindspring.com
Tue Nov 2 02:30:23 UTC 2004
I think it boils down to a need for a change
in direction. We may not like much of what
Kerry offers, but Bush will not change.
From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 5:42 PM
To: The new improved paleopsych list
Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] campaign
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.
>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
<< File: ATT00012.html >> << File: ATT00013.txt >>
More information about the paleopsych