Kerry should be glad he lost..... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Flyguy · 11-04-2004, 10:35 PM

Article

You know what? I feel better after reading this. From this day forward, there will be no more blaming Clinton. Anything that happend in the last four years and from this day forward IS Bush's fault. It may turn out to be a good thing that Kerry lost. If President Kerry had been in office and we had another attack, or any other type of crisis in Iraq, etc. he and the Democratic Party would be blamed for it and be labeled as the weak, incompetent party. Kerry just gave the Republicans a very large piece of rope. And I'm willing to bet they'll end up hanging themselves. I'm going to sit back, relax and wait for the "I told you so" momemt.

It will come.

irateplatypus · 11-04-2004, 10:38 PM

fair enough... under most circumstances.

as long as you're willing to give Bush the credit for positive developments as well.

Memalvada · 11-04-2004, 10:39 PM

For those who dont want to click on the link:

Quote:

Kerry should be glad he lost
ANATOLE KALETSKY

FOR THOSE of us who were disappointed, and even horrified, by George W. Bush’s return to power there was one consolation in yesterday’s result. On the contrary, the previously unmentionable hope for the supporters of liberal politics in America, is that Senator Kerry has done the Democratic Party a favour of immense, historic proportions by losing to Mr Bush. In military history, it is a commonplace that there are certain battles worth losing rather than winning — and if ever this were true in politics, then the 2004 US election would be a case in point.

To see what I mean, step away from America for a moment and consider the most successful left-of-centre party in the modern world: Britain’s “new” Labour Party. Now ask yourself what electoral event laid the foundation for Labour’s success. This would be the 1992 election, in which a manifestly incompetent Tory Government was unexpectedly and undeservedly returned to power.

If Neil Kinnock instead of John Major had won the 1992 election, the devaluation of Black Wednesday would have occurred even sooner. The monetary crisis which undermined the Tories’ long-established reputation for economic competence would have been blamed on Labour’s mismanagement. Black Wednesday (or Monday or Tuesday) would almost certainly have brought down the Kinnock Government and would unquestionably have ended Labour’s hopes of ever again becoming a serious party of government. Indeed, as a very minor contributor to the outcome of the 1992 election through my articles unravelling Labour’s absurd tax plans, I have often been thanked by friends in the party for inadvertently helping them to avoid the terrible fate awaiting them if they had gained power.

So was 2004 a good election to lose, just like 1992 in Britain? Will the Democrats one day thank John Kerry for losing, just as Labour is grateful to Mr Kinnock? This seems distinctly possible, given the challenges now facing America, especially in geopolitics and macroeconomics. Iraq is a mess which Mr Bush created and it is surely fitting that he should be the one forced to clean it up. The same is true of ballooning government deficits, escalating oil prices and the small but growing, threat of a crisis in the US balance of payments leading to an international run on the dollar.

Extricating American forces from Iraq will be extremely difficult for Mr Bush, especially if he tries to maintain significant control over its foreign policies and its energy resources. Restoring stability to Iraq, without handing the country over to an overtly anti-Western or theocratic regime will become even harder if Mr Bush decides to pick a fight with Iran over nuclear proliferation — or, even worse, if he backs Israel in a “pre-emptive” military attack. To control America’s public finances will be equally difficult, given that the President and his party are now totally committed to ever-lower taxes, ever-more aggressive military postures and ever-more generous corporate subsidies.

It is quite likely, therefore, that in the next year or two President Bush could face a military or economic crisis (or both) — and, crucially, that such a crisis would be analogous to Black Wednesday in its political effects. If Mr Bush suffered a serious military setback, either in Iraq or in a broader confrontation involving Iran, Israel and other Middle East countries (not to mention North Korea or Taiwan), the Republicans would lose their reputation as the “party of national security”, just as the British Tories lost their reputation as the party of economic competence in 1992. The damage to the Republicans’ national security reputation would be even greater if America were hit by a serious terrorist attack or if withdrawal from Iraq turned into a disorderly Vietnam-style humiliation.

On the economic front, the Republicans risk disgrace if they raise taxes or if, as is much more likely in my view, America suffers a financial and inflationary crisis because of its failure to bring the federal budget back under control.

But even if the Bush Administration manages to avoid any such disasters, the analogy with Britain in the early 1990s suggests that the Democrats should be grateful to stay out of the White House for the next four years. The electorate’s decision to let Mr Bush clear up his own messes does not just threaten the incumbent with poetic justice; more importantly it offers a reprieve from a potential death sentence on the Democrats. If a newly-elected President Kerry were to suffer a terrorist attack or a humiliation in Iraq or some kind of fiscal crisis, the political backlash against the Democrats would be far worse than the damage faced in similar circumstances by Mr Bush.

For as hard as Mr Kerry would try to blame the Bush legacy for any such disasters, the public would see them as evidence that the Democrats as a party are weak on terrorism, prone to defeat in military confrontations and ideologically committed to higher tax. It is again worth imagining the public reaction in Britain if it had been the economic policies of Mr Kinnock, instead of Mr Major, that were blown away by the markets six months after the election of 1992.

In sum, the next four years could be a good time for the Democrats to let right-wing Republicans take their policies to their logical conclusion and beyond. Just as Mr Major took Thatcherism beyond its logical conclusions with policies such as rail privatisation and the bizarre moralising of “back to basics”, the Republicans could overreach themselves not only in economics and foreign policy but also in social and environmental matters and o n the membership of the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the Democrats must rebuild their party, unite around an impressive new leader and wait for Republican mythology to self-destruct in the face of events. All this will happen in time, very possibly in the next four years. If so, the Democrats may one day hail Mr Kerry as the man whose defeat paved the way for Hillary Clinton, just as Labour now reveres Mr Kinnock as the lucky loser who made possible the triumphs of Tony Blair.

sob · 11-04-2004, 10:42 PM

Works for me. The 2000 election was another great one for the Dems to lose. Imagine how screwed up this country would be if Al Gore had won!

The UN would be busy getting our soldiers killed, for example.

Flyguy · 11-04-2004, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

Works for me. The 2000 election was another great one for the Dems to lose. Imagine how screwed up this country would be if Al Gore had won!

The UN would be busy getting our soldiers killed, for example.

And Bush is miraculously keeping them alive?? By sending them to the desert with shitty equipment? With no exit plan? Read my post again bub.

Prince · 11-04-2004, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

as long as you're willing to give Bush the credit for positive developments as well

Yeah, the tax cuts for the corporate CEOs. Forgot about that.

Manx · 11-04-2004, 11:08 PM

Indeed, it would be nice to believe.

But we have already seen the man deny any mistakes. We have already seen his supporters deny his mistakes. There will never be any responsibility assigned to him, or indeed his party. We have already seen the claims that Iraq is a mess because "the liberals did not support our troops!".

If you asked him yourself, he would probably tell you he is doing a "superb" job. Like Rumsfeld.

rukkyg · 11-05-2004, 04:30 AM

EVERYONE TAKE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY AND INVEST IT IN CORPORATE CEOS!!!

smooth · 11-05-2004, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rukkyg

EVERYONE TAKE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY AND INVEST IT IN CORPORATE CEOS!!!

how the fuck am I going to do that?

my wife only makes $10 bucks an hour. we have enough trouble paying the rent in orange county (not really, I'm one of those liberal leeches living off my university based on merit, but you get the point

)

filtherton · 11-05-2004, 09:57 AM

This assumes that partisans of either side are rational. I predict even more cognitive dissonance as the effort required to blame liberals increases exponentially. It's still going to happen though.

sob · 11-07-2004, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyguy

And Bush is miraculously keeping them alive?? By sending them to the desert with shitty equipment? With no exit plan? Read my post again bub.

No, they're keeping US alive by dismantling 75% of al Quaeda. Which happens to be the job of the military.

In case you haven't noticed, there hasn't been a terrorist attack on this country since Bush got busy. Clinton sure can't say any of his tough talk and lack of action impeded the terrorists. Wait--I'm sure he'd SAY it, it just wouldn't be true.

"Bub."

Ustwo · 11-07-2004, 09:27 AM

You know I think by this logic, 2008 would be great for the dems to loose too.

I mean sooner or later SOMETHING bad has got to happen that won't be the republicans fault but the dems can try to blame them for it, say like the last recession.

aberkok · 11-07-2004, 09:44 AM

For those who bring up the "no terrorist attacks since Bush got busy," keep in mind that there was nothing on the scale of 9/11 before Bush. Similarly, there's been no evidence that his administration has prevented any similar attacks after 9/11. It's like saying that there hasn't been a "Lord of the Rings" trilogy since Tolkein wrote one. It's a logical fallacy.

As for the article, it's a nice notion, but there seems to be an ignorance of what is actually going to occur in the U.S. during the next 4 years. The Republicans being allowed to run their policies to their (il)logical conclusions will have a very real effect on real people. Sure it might make the Dems look good by comparison, but in the meantime (and 4 years is a long time) some real shit will flow downwards. This article is out of touch.

ObieX · 11-07-2004, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Indeed, it would be nice to believe.

But we have already seen the man deny any mistakes. We have already seen his supporters deny his mistakes. There will never be any responsibility assigned to him, or indeed his party. We have already seen the claims that Iraq is a mess because "the liberals did not support our troops!".

If you asked him yourself, he would probably tell you he is doing a "superb" job. Like Rumsfeld.

He can think he's perfect all he likes. It'll be the people that write the history books, not him.

Clark · 11-08-2004, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

fair enough... under most circumstances.

as long as you're willing to give Bush the credit for positive developments as well.

You have a deal. I hope that I am wrong and that Bush & Co. will bring good things. If the Republican make things better over the next 4 years I will give them credit. At the same time I will hold them to what I think will happen. As the debt grows and the draft comes and real wages continue to fall I will blame the Republicans and take little solace in the fact that I did not vote for them.

Unright · 11-08-2004, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

No, they're keeping US alive by dismantling 75% of al Quaeda. Which happens to be the job of the military.

In case you haven't noticed, there hasn't been a terrorist attack on this country since Bush got busy. Clinton sure can't say any of his tough talk and lack of action impeded the terrorists. Wait--I'm sure he'd SAY it, it just wouldn't be true.

Y'know... if 9/11 had happened in 2000 instead of 2001, maybe you'd have a point. But we were well into the era of Bush while the terrorists attacked.

And if you're going to back in time to blame previous presidents for not pre-emptively stopping terrorists, how come you don't go back further and blame Reagan or Bush Sr. who not only didn't stop terrorism, but actually provided them with weapons and training.

Oh that's right, it's always the fault of the liberal democrats. Bush is doing a good job, but it's hard work. He's caught 75% (of some sort of official total number?) of Al Queda, but Osama bin Laden is still sending tauting video tapes.

The buck stops wherever Bush points to.

Kalibah · 11-08-2004, 03:48 PM

They attacked US soil more times under clinton

Embayses - marine barracks, WTC take 1, etc.

Bush did what Clinton should have. I liked Clinton, but he was 'wobbly' on foreign policy- the typical Democrat - ala Carter. Firing off a few cruise missles is a democrats idea of pre-emptive strike

Afghanistan is going well - Elections took place- *MOST* of the country is doing well.

Look in Iraq- look at the Kurds- they are doing great- they have their own Army protecting their streets... What we outta do is ship some of them down to Sadarr city and Fallujah and let the Kurds worth their magic.

Course you only see the negatives on TV. More US Soldiers dying, bombs going off left and right. Hell most Arab countries are like that anyway- it aint any worse than before - And Im confident Bush will get it cleaned up- like Afghanistan

Liberal media was crying Quagmire then too- its just taking a bit longer to clear up in Iraq.

11-04-2004, 10:35 PM	#1 (permalink)
Flyguy Banned Location: Swooping down on you from above....	Kerry should be glad he lost..... Article You know what? I feel better after reading this. From this day forward, there will be no more blaming Clinton. Anything that happend in the last four years and from this day forward IS Bush's fault. It may turn out to be a good thing that Kerry lost. If President Kerry had been in office and we had another attack, or any other type of crisis in Iraq, etc. he and the Democratic Party would be blamed for it and be labeled as the weak, incompetent party. Kerry just gave the Republicans a very large piece of rope. And I'm willing to bet they'll end up hanging themselves. I'm going to sit back, relax and wait for the "I told you so" momemt. It will come. Last edited by Flyguy; 11-05-2004 at 12:51 AM..

11-04-2004, 10:38 PM	#2 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	fair enough... under most circumstances. as long as you're willing to give Bush the credit for positive developments as well. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

11-07-2004, 09:27 AM	#12 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	You know I think by this logic, 2008 would be great for the dems to loose too. I mean sooner or later SOMETHING bad has got to happen that won't be the republicans fault but the dems can try to blame them for it, say like the last recession. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-07-2004, 09:44 AM	#13 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	For those who bring up the "no terrorist attacks since Bush got busy," keep in mind that there was nothing on the scale of 9/11 before Bush. Similarly, there's been no evidence that his administration has prevented any similar attacks after 9/11. It's like saying that there hasn't been a "Lord of the Rings" trilogy since Tolkein wrote one. It's a logical fallacy. As for the article, it's a nice notion, but there seems to be an ignorance of what is actually going to occur in the U.S. during the next 4 years. The Republicans being allowed to run their policies to their (il)logical conclusions will have a very real effect on real people. Sure it might make the Dems look good by comparison, but in the meantime (and 4 years is a long time) some real shit will flow downwards. This article is out of touch. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

11-04-2004, 10:42 PM	#4 (permalink)
sob Banned	Works for me. The 2000 election was another great one for the Dems to lose. Imagine how screwed up this country would be if Al Gore had won! The UN would be busy getting our soldiers killed, for example.

11-04-2004, 11:08 PM	#7 (permalink)
Manx Loser	Indeed, it would be nice to believe. But we have already seen the man deny any mistakes. We have already seen his supporters deny his mistakes. There will never be any responsibility assigned to him, or indeed his party. We have already seen the claims that Iraq is a mess because "the liberals did not support our troops!". If you asked him yourself, he would probably tell you he is doing a "superb" job. Like Rumsfeld.

11-05-2004, 04:30 AM	#8 (permalink)
rukkyg Loser Location: RPI, Troy, NY	EVERYONE TAKE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY AND INVEST IT IN CORPORATE CEOS!!!

11-05-2004, 09:57 AM	#10 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	This assumes that partisans of either side are rational. I predict even more cognitive dissonance as the effort required to blame liberals increases exponentially. It's still going to happen though.

11-08-2004, 03:48 PM	#17 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	They attacked US soil more times under clinton Embayses - marine barracks, WTC take 1, etc. Bush did what Clinton should have. I liked Clinton, but he was 'wobbly' on foreign policy- the typical Democrat - ala Carter. Firing off a few cruise missles is a democrats idea of pre-emptive strike Afghanistan is going well - Elections took place- MOST of the country is doing well. Look in Iraq- look at the Kurds- they are doing great- they have their own Army protecting their streets... What we outta do is ship some of them down to Sadarr city and Fallujah and let the Kurds worth their magic. Course you only see the negatives on TV. More US Soldiers dying, bombs going off left and right. Hell most Arab countries are like that anyway- it aint any worse than before - And Im confident Bush will get it cleaned up- like Afghanistan Liberal media was crying Quagmire then too- its just taking a bit longer to clear up in Iraq.