Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (84343)	11/6/2004 4:12:58 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793822

kausfiles Let the Healing Begin, But Not Yet! First, some paranoia. By Mickey Kaus Updated Friday, Nov. 5, 2004, at 11:47 PM PT Like Marlon Perkins, Tim Russert explains President Bush's appeal in the far-off "so-called red states" to Tom Brokaw and the Bo-Wash corridor: "They can see him in his jeans and his swagger and his belt buckle, a lot of things a lot of people in--in the Northeast would laugh at. But they identify with it. And, Tom, they will say that their i--their connection with him on the issue of values and as a man of faith was much more important to them than the state of the economy or the war in Iraq." 1) Not the most condescending thing that has been said about the red states. But pretty condescending! Doesn't Russert have to get, you know, ratings? Do red state viewers (or Bush voters generally) actually like watching Tim Russert? Hard to believe. 2) Would these mystifying red people actually "say" that their connection with Bush on faith and values is more important than the major issues facing the country? Russert suggests they're so blinded by faith they'd vote for Bush even if everything was manifestly going to hell. Wouldn't they maybe "say" that the economy isn't in such bad shape--as is, in fact, true--and maybe the war in Iraq isn't in such irrevocably bad shape either? Haven't they, in fact, just said that? 11:38 P.M.

To: LindyBill who wrote (84343)	11/6/2004 6:48:59 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793822

How was the Election won or lost? There were defining moments or errors on the part of both Parties over a period of years. But The Liberal Presses were responsible for Kerry's loss . And Fox news for Bush's win Bush's winning moments were his presence in NYC after 911. His presence in Florida after the hurricanes. His long struggle with the UN to win a Coalition or even to win the approval of France to do anything about Saddam. His selection of the proper men to lead our Military into Baghdad in record time and minimal casualties. Winning a war in Afghanistan that even the Russians could not win And all the time the Press is faulting the Administration and exaggerating whatever bad things that happened along the way. The troops are running out of water, the troops are running out of food, the troops are bogged down on the outskirts of Baghdad, the troops are killing civilians. All BS. The Abu Graihb prison scandal being blamed on high level commanders, when any US Serviceman knows they would not order such an action. The continual complaints about keeping prisoners in Cuba, with never a word about what better way or place to interrogate them. And endless stream of "no WMD's found" as though Saddam would have to be left alone to continue to torture, kill and steal if none were found. Implications that Bush said Saddam was an imminent threat when that was not what he said - he said becoming a threat. We are at war with terrorists, but the liberal Press treats Americans as the bad guys. They complain about the cost of the war, without considering what greater loss will occur if we lose. In summary the average voter is not buying the argument that we are the bad guys. Nor that our economy is going to hell in handbasket. We will admit mistakes, we are not perfect. But we are not chopping off heads with rusty knives to display on TV or purposely blowing up civilians. Sig