PunBB
"Right wing blogs"? - Printable Version

+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: "Right wing blogs"? (/showthread.php?tid=3797)

Pages: 1 2

"Right wing blogs"? - grooveless touque - 09-30-2004

I have just spent 20 minutes on google trying to find these so-called right wing blogs that have been mentioned on the air every 10 seconds since the debates ended. "The right wing blogs are going nuts", "the right wing blogs are criticizing the President", etc. I can't find a single one.

I am finding hundreds of references to these blogs, so theoretically they must exist, but do any of the politically aware members of this board know any of them? It's easy to find out what the left thinks of the debate, but I'm genuinely interested to know what right-leaning people have to say about the President's performance...

- VioletlightHeron - 09-30-2004

Grooveless, here's a list of conservative bloggers posting live during the debate, enjoy! :mrgreen:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/002217.html#002217">http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives ... tml#002217</a><!-- m -->

- grooveless touque - 10-01-2004

Great! Thanks...that was exactly what I was looking for. Wonder why it didn't show up during my Googling...

- grooveless touque - 10-01-2004

Holy crap, these blogs are a BONANZA!! My estimation of Bush supporters just dropped through the floor!!

This one person says "Kerry is talking about opium...What?!?" and another says "Paris? Degall [spelt wrong, of course]? Kerry is wandering way off course into obscure and irrelevent stuff".

These Bush supporters are completely ignorant...they've got one track minds and just want to hear about terror, WMDs, and how Saddam and Osama were related. The first one hasn't any interest in hearing about how Afghanistan has degraded into a drug-infested thug-ocracy, and the second has no idea how the peace accords of the past set a precedent for the future. Amazing!

Thanks again for the link. These will keep me entertained for ages, and give me plenty of ammo next time I meet a "Bush pilot"!

- Stephen Dame - 10-01-2004

I don't think these debates really changed much.

Bush was folksy and relaxed, but did seem to trip a few times, especially when he basically passed on the last 30 second extension.

Kerry was attacking well, but he didn't connect like a human being the way George did.

I think the debates showed that Bush isn't the moron he's sometimes painted to be, and Kerry can use strong rhetoric to match the Bush-Cheney "flip-flop" tag.

Both gusy did well, but the defending champ wasn't knocked out.

I'm betting Bush wins by 3 million votes, after taking Florida and Arizona easily.

- grooveless touque - 10-01-2004

I think Kerry won it 60-40. Bush just looked weak, but tragically Kerry was not truly brilliant. This could have been an incredible chance for Kerry because Bush looked befuddled half the time. Kerry could have been the charismatic, impassioned American he was when he testified to Congress in the Vietnam sessions, to counter Bush's smirking, arrogant attitude and ineptness when it came to answering questions quickly. But Kerry showed he has the clear command of the issues without connecting with the audience...considering how bad Bush was most of the time, a few quality jabs aside, Kerry should have walked away with this one.

You know Bush's people were disappointed with this, but as the blogs show, Bush voters are much less enlightened and they won't allow this to detract from their opinion of him.

- Stephen Dame - 10-01-2004

grooveless touque Wrote:Bush voters are much less enlightened and they won't allow this to detract from their opinion of him.

Yikes. I can't agree with that... but I do think last night didn't change many minds.

- grooveless touque - 10-01-2004

Well I just think Bush voters are dedicated to him almost militantly. The Bush voters I know, personally, in the US, don't ever want to talk politics. They are close-minded and short-sighted. They don't want to compare point by point Bush and Kerry's propositions, and they don't want to talk about Bush alienating the rest of the free world (of course, I can't forget POLAND is on his side...), and they don't want to talk about corporate conspiracy, and they don't want to talk about Bush's ineffectual outward appearance (although obviously he's not truly "stupid" like we are fond of saying). They're just Republicans, god damn it, and they want their tax breaks without long-term fiduciary resposibility or environmental concerns impeding on their selfish ways. Saddam = foreign = bad = worth killing Americans to depose him. Another thing they don't want to talk about is how Hussein was never a threat to the US and never would be...

I call that unenlightened.

- sherpahigh - 10-01-2004

grooveless touque Wrote:Well I just think Bush voters are dedicated to him almost militantly. The Bush voters I know, personally, in the US, don't ever want to talk politics. They are close-minded and short-sighted. They don't want to compare point by point Bush and Kerry's propositions, and they don't want to talk about Bush alienating the rest of the free world (of course, I can't forget POLAND is on his side...), and they don't want to talk about corporate conspiracy, and they don't want to talk about Bush's ineffectual outward appearance (although obviously he's not truly "stupid" like we are fond of saying). They're just Republicans, god damn it, and they want their tax breaks without long-term fiduciary resposibility or environmental concerns impeding on their selfish ways. Saddam = foreign = bad = worth killing Americans to depose him. Another thing they don't want to talk about is how Hussein was never a threat to the US and never would be...

I call that unenlightened.

That's a pretty giant brush you're painting with. Myself, I'm not really pro or anti-bush. I agree with him and disagree. Though I do know quite a few Bush supporters and I can't think of one of them who would fit your discription of ignorant, unenlightened or militant.

- grooveless touque - 10-01-2004

I call them as I see them. My experiences with half a dozen Bush voters I either know or know by association have all led me to this conclusion. I do not purport that every Bush voter is as oblivious as Bush himself, but I think the majority of them are.

I also don't mean to personally insult a Bush voter who doesn't fit into that mold. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule. But this "rule" is, I believe, valid...based on personal experience talking with Americans I know. They simply don't like talking about politics because they find it so hard to defend their candidate when it's so easy for anti-Bush people like me to punch him full of holes.

- The Horrible Esthete - 10-01-2004

A) For the record - I thought Kerry did a very good job last night. Much better than Bush.

B) I've experienced the same reluctance to discuss politics on behalf of most of the Kerry supporters I know. The fact that you have exprienced this with Bush supporters just demonstrates (in my mind) that many Americans have political opinions, but not a lot of political knowledge. And of those of us who do have some political knowledge, not too many are staunchly supportive of their individual candidate. I'm not huge on GW by any stretch, but I'll take him any day over Kerry.

C) While I think there may be plenty of "close-minded, short-sighted" Bush supporters, I firmly believe that the percentage of "close-minded, short-sighted" Kerry supporters is equal.

- VioletlightHeron - 10-01-2004

Neil, as much as I respect your dedication to the band and contributing to the discussion on the board, I think you went overboard with your description of Bush supporters as "unenlightened". I'm voting for Bush for 3 reasons. 1) He articulates exactly where he stands on the role of government in society.2) He's a strong believer in neo-realism in international political relations and 3) He believes strongly about how misused and wrong abortion is. He's not the greatest political speaker in the world and gives the impression that, like Ronald Reagan, he's an "amiable dunce" but he's not trying desperately to impress the New York media crowd or the Beltway pundits with his intelligence and credentials like Clinton did and Kerry is doing now. A President has to be his own man and make decisions he firmly believes in and supports. Kerry, for all his intelligence and experience, is a man who still seeks that validation that he's a smart guy. My basic problem with Kerry is his evasiveness on how he would get France and the rest of the allies who disagree with us over Iraq back into Iraq to make a grand coalition. What exactly is he going to offer them that will make them so willing to help us? France is helping us with hunting down Al-Queda in Africa and the Middle East and they don't have (in my opinion) the military capability or resources to send a big, heavily armed contingent to Iraq. They have the same obligations that the US does to staff bases elsewhere in the world. Furthermore, even if we get Germany, France and China to commit troops to Iraq, the command and control situation would look like Dante's 9th circle of hell because each country has its own agenda with respect to Iraq, its own ROE(Rules of Engagement) and different ways of managing and fighting. The reason the partition of Germany into 4 seperate zones after WW II(Russian, French, British and US) was that there was no major threat from German partisans or guerrillas. How can we expect the same kind of grand coalition to work in Iraq under totally seperate circumstances? It can't and Kerry is well aware of these facts but doesn't want to admit that American forces have to take on a disproportionate share of the burden because we have some of the finest, capable troops in the world. Kerry doesnt want to admit this because he wants to sucker the American people into believing he can convince our erstwhile European allies into joining us when there is no possible chance of that happenening unless we allow full UN control, which worked wonders in Rwanda, Kosovo and the Sudan. The UN is a great organization with the best intentions but it has fractured leadership and countries with different agendas fighting for control and direction. The UN, since the Gulf War, has passed some 17 resolutions ordering Saddam to cooperate with the weapons inspectors or face "serious consequences"( serious consequences meaning the likely threat of war). Each time, the UN threatened and blustered, Saddam gave in a little bit while finding new ways to obfusticate and hide materials and documents, then the UN would back down and debate amongst itself about this "progress" and then Saddam would do something to kick sand in the face of the UN or not cooperate and the whole game would continue anew. I don't think Kerry's responses to threats like Saddam or somebody similar would be any different than President Clinton's. Which means we lob a few cruise missiles into a few buildings, have a few airstrikes that do some damage but leave the guy we want out of there still in control. Does that sound like progress to you? sure as hell doesnt to me and thats one of the reasons im voting for Bush.

- tigerthelion - 10-01-2004

Quote:But Kerry showed he has the clear command of the issues without connecting with the audience...

Hmmmm, this reminds me of some other guy who tried to be president. Has knowlege but doesn't relate with the audience. Is this Al Gore or John Kerry. Isn't there a Democrat out there who can connect with the audience? Big Grin

- ABSteele - 10-01-2004

Yes, and his name is John Edwards. Smile Edwards was by far my favorite candidate in the Democratic Primaries, but he wouldn't have had much chance to win because Karl Rove would've had a field day with his relative inexperience on capitol hill. The whole "washington outsider" angle used to work very well for candidates, but the times sure have changed. Anyhow, Edwards is much more upbeat and personable, and makes a pretty good sidekick for a less personable guy like Kerry. He's been busy touring in rural and suburban america, so he hasn't really helped the national campaign much, but I think the vice presidential debate ought to bring more attention to him. The contrast between Edwards and Dick Cheney is huge, and while I don't think much of anyone could push Cheney around in a debate, Edwards could definitely turn some undecideds towards Kerry.

- grooveless touque - 10-01-2004

tiger, the fact that the Democrats haven't fielded a candidate who's all smiles like Bush who can talk "down" on the people's level shows their willingness to stick to their ideals. The fact that the Republicans manipulate the public by giving them someone charismatic who acts as a mere figurehead does not make it RIGHT to do so. Americans need a President who will take charge - the degradation of the situation in Afghanistan is something Kerry never would have allowed. But because Bush is just a puppet for his cronies' interests, Iraq took the focus off the true centre of terrorism. Iraq was never going to be a threat against the US, even if they had minor WMDs. There have been NO proven ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam - the AMERICANS were closer to Saddam in the 80s than Al Qaeda ever was or ever has been. You gave the guys the friggin' weapons! And - what's this? - it worked against you? Quel d'hommage! Colour me surprised!

Look, I just think people are won over by Bush's amiability, which corrupts the process of political ideals. Bush's stances on major issues, aside from being DEAD WRONG (environment, anybody?), are only clear because he jumps to conclusions and only hears what he wants to. Of course he was clearly in favour of the war in Iraq, because it served his interests. He never thought about the tragedy that could result, and has. Bush's cronies (not Bush, of course, because he would never say anything un-amiable) promised rainbows, lollipops and sunshine in Iraq. I defy you to say Iraq is not worse off now, with Bush's enterprises allowing certain groups to run amok while they protect their interests.

And as for the issue of "How does John Kerry plan to bring a coalition together?" How can you even ask that? Isn't the fact that he's willing to extend a hand to them in cooperation better than Bush's "If you're not 100% alongside us, you're with the terrorists"?? It seems extremely hypocritical to criticize Kerry for not making public a clear plan to do this - well, Bush has had FOUR YEARS to work something positive out, and since day one, even before 9/11, he was working to strategically alienate the US's former allies. Once again, because his and his puppetmaster's interests were not served. If ten countries had significant forces in Iraq (which, I hardly need say, was a catastrophic mistake to invade in the first place), then the US would have a significantly smaller share of the spoils.

The fact remains that Bush's decision to invade Iraq never would have happened under Al Gore. More rational minds would clearly have realized Saddam was never an imminent threat - Cheney's EXACT WORDS - and the situation in Afghanistan would be all the better for not having the Iraq distraction. No, Bush got himself and Iraqtion and wouldn't stop long enough to get reasonable priorities. Do you know WHY the UN never took action? Because Saddam was never going to be a threat to anything other than certain groups in his own country! The UN was as smart and rational as Gore and Kerry would have been, and never bothered to force Saddam's hand because it was unnecessary. It's oblivious of the facts to think otherwise, and that's where the "uninformed, unenlightened" blind faith I spoke of that Bush knows what he's doing comes from.