What's wrong with "Anybody but Bush"?

[Agrajag]

The problem is Kerry's qualifications are actually below those Bush brought to the table in 2000. He's never held anything but legislative office, and as you yourself said the Senate isn't the Presidency.

That just isn't true. First, Kerry ran a SUCCESSFUL business for some time which is one more than Bush ran. Kerry was also Lieutenant Governor of Mass. in 1982. He's also spent 20 YEARS in the Senate. Meanwhile Bush brings as a resume, running several businesses POORLY and being an average (at best) Governor of Texas which is WELL known for giving its governor the least control over anything there.

Trying to pretend they have identical 'resumes' is just preposterous.

Most people wouldn't HIRE Bush outside of this argument for anything other than public relations benefits. Most business people wouldn't think twice about hiring Kerry with his resume.

Right now Kerry's Employee of the Month but never held a management job.

Someone needs to help you do searches or clean out however is filling your head with this misinformation. To suggest that this is the criteria for being President suggests that only ex-Presidents can be President.

[Stormbringer]

That just isn't true. First, Kerry ran a SUCCESSFUL business for some time which is one more than Bush ran. Kerry was also Lieutenant Governor of Mass. in 1982. He's also spent 20 YEARS in the Senate. Meanwhile Bush brings as a resume, running several businesses POORLY and being an average (at best) Governor of Texas which is WELL known for giving its governor the least control over anything there.

1) Lt. Governor is not an executive job, unless the governor is incapacitated. At most it's being the executive's personal bitch.

2) I don't deny Bush has been involved with failed or underperforming businesses. But then again business isn't politics.

3) The Senate is not executive office.

Most people wouldn't HIRE Bush outside of this argument for anything other than public relations benefits. Most business people wouldn't think twice about hiring Kerry with his resume.

No they wouldn't. But then again I think out side some lobbying firms Kerry would be hard pressed to get a job as well. Ex-politcians aren't generally in high demand.

Someone needs to help you do searches or clean out however is filling your head with this misinformation. To suggest that this is the criteria for being President suggests that only ex-Presidents can be President.

Nice strawman. Now where did I say that one had to be President to be qualified for the job? Oh wait, no where. I think a Senator is more qualified than a total layman, but it's hardly a sterling recommendation.

I do think that holding executive office (such as a governorship) is a far, far better measure of a potential president that being a career Senator. The two are very different things and being good at one doesn't make one good at the other.

[Darth Wong]

The problem is Kerry's qualifications are actually below those Bush brought to the table in 2000. He's never held anything but legislative office, and as you yourself said the Senate isn't the Presidency.

But a state governorship is? If your position is that nothing but presidential experience qualifies one to be president, we're going to have a pretty dry supply of qualified presidential candidates in the future. What he has is knowledge of the business, knowledge of its current needs, and experience in high-level negotiations. And that's at the FEDERAL level, not the state level.

Trying to pretend they have identical 'resumes' is just preposterous.

Yes, I'm being very generous to Bush 2000 by doing that, aren't I?

I would argue that their qualifications are different. Bush has had a very different track in getting to the White House than Kerry has had so far. Kerry's got a so-so record as a Senator, but it's not necessarily one that suits him to executive office. Right now Kerry's Employee of the Month but never held a management job.

He's actually held a real management job and been successful at it, which is more than we can say for Bush.

As for the lying yes Bush has, but how does that improve Kerry's qualifications any?

OK, let's review some basic math, shall we? We compare two variables, A and B. A is reduced by 500. Does this increase B relative to A? Yessir, it does.

Right now Kerry's basically the guy that came into the interveiw already out to lunch; he's phoned in the interveiw. He's blown chance after chance; and his learning curve doesn't seem that great either.

And you honestly figure a real business would have trouble choosing between a guy who has qualifications but gave a stiff interview and a guy who's been fucking up the company, pissing off the employees, losing money, and lying to the board?

Sure it does; you just refuse to accept the analogy as given, so you keep trying to dishonestly modify it to suit your purposes

No, I'm saying it doesn't work because it's a forced fit. The candidates aren't equally qualified but in all reality there's only the two choices. Right now we're basically stuck with either the creep manager or the Employee of the Month, who's only experience has been watching management from the job floor.

Spoken like someone who has zero work experience. In reality, a great many managers are promoted from the floor, and those often turn out to be the best ones because they are intimately familiar with operations. But by all means, feel free to continue making up your own imaginary claims of how things work in business with no experience.

I don't know of any job at all that you can only pick from on possible applicants.

I know of many. In fact, I've known of many jobs that went begging for qualified applicants, and in which you were lucky to get one qualified applicant. Yet again, you base your argument upon ignorance of the way things actually work in the real world. Perhaps this ignorance explains your political views.

[Agrajag]

1) Lt. Governor is not an executive job, unless the governor is incapacitated.

Not the point. You said he'd only held legislative office.

2) I don't deny Bush has been involved with failed or underperforming businesses. But then again business isn't politics.

No, in most cases it takes someone with more experience to get to the top in business.

3) The Senate is not executive office.

You're kidding yourself with that one. They run an entire company from the office of a Senator. Got visit the office of one of your Senators and tell me that you now believe that the Senator isn't running it like an executive of any company. He's got budgets to control, staff to manage, marketing to coordinate, PR to control, etc. It's not THE executive office but history has shown that some rather unqualified people have managed to snow enough people to get in there from time-to-time. This is one of those times.

No they wouldn't. But then again I think out side some lobbying firms Kerry would be hard pressed to get a job as well. Ex-politcians aren't generally in high demand.

Another case of my having to ask you if you're joking. Kerry's life is CLEAN. He's been a PROVEN LEADER making TOUGH choices and stands his entire life. You honestly believe that if you had Kerry's lifetime of success and experience that you'd have a hard time getting a job? Yeah, okay.

Now where did I say that one had to be President to be qualified for the job? Oh wait, no where.

You said, "or the Employee of the Month, who's only experience has been watching management from the job floor." In this case, Management would be the President. There are VERY FEW steps between a President and a Senator in this country. Thus, your argument heavily suggests that the only person truly qualified to be President is one tho MANAGED at that level. Well, that's pretty much ONE job, that of President.

I think a Senator is more qualified than a total layman, but it's hardly a sterling recommendation.

I think you'd be well served to go back and check into just what a recommendation it is. If memory serves, I believe 15 Senators have gone on to become President. That's more than 1/3rd of them. How many Presidents have been "total laymen"? A fingerless man could count them on one hand.

I do think that holding executive office (such as a governorship) is a far, far better measure of a potential president that being a career Senator.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. 17 Governors have become President thus, it's nearly even.

The two are very different things and being good at one doesn't make one good at the other.

Ah, the number above? Several held BOTH jobs. Clearly they're not all that amazingly different and a Senator has the inside track on how to play the Washington game from close up. Just ask Howard Dean about that advantage. I'm sure he wished he had that experience.

[Lord Poe]

You know, it seems that the question here isn't "Anybody But Bush", its "Anyone But A Republican."

I wonder, if the choice to replace the incompetent manager from the "Blue" team with another "Blue" team member, who is untried, and would bring in his own administration, versus replacing the incompetent "Blue" manager with a "Red" team member sight unseen simply because he doesn't belong to the Blue team, would the tone of this thread be the same, or not?

After all. the OP did not name Kerry at all.

[Darth Wong]

You know, it seems that the question here isn't "Anybody But Bush", its "Anyone But A Republican."

I wonder, if the choice to replace the incompetent manager from the "Blue" team with another "Blue" team member, who is untried, and would bring in his own administration, versus replacing the incompetent "Blue" manager with a "Red" team member sight unseen simply because he doesn't belong to the Blue team, would the tone of this thread be the same, or not?

After all. the OP did not name Kerry at all.

Well, let's face it, political leaders nowadays are just avatars for their parties. It's not like Henry Ford, running roughshod over the company and ruling with an iron fist. But the same logic applies: just replace "employee" or "manager" with "supplier" or "outsourcing company".

[The Kernel]

You know, it seems that the question here isn't "Anybody But Bush", its "Anyone But A Republican."

I wonder, if the choice to replace the incompetent manager from the "Blue" team with another "Blue" team member, who is untried, and would bring in his own administration, versus replacing the incompetent "Blue" manager with a "Red" team member sight unseen simply because he doesn't belong to the Blue team, would the tone of this thread be the same, or not?

After all. the OP did not name Kerry at all.

Well, let's face it, political leaders nowadays are just avatars for their parties. It's not like Henry Ford, running roughshod over the company and ruling with an iron fist. But the same logic applies: just replace "employee" or "manager" with "supplier" or "outsourcing company".

Even within political parties, there is a certain amount of variation. Despite appearances, there are many Republicans who are not satisfied with Bush being such a hardliner, but they are forced to stand behind him as Tom DeLay has made it very clear that he will not allow ANY dissent within the party towards the President or his legislation. Still, you can obviously see the difference between men like John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger and the party hardliners such as Bush.

On the Democrat side there is a bit more unity right now, but only because the Democrats are tired of being out of power in every single branch of government and are determined to bring their party back to old levels of authority, even if it means making compromises on key issues. Kerry is actually a little farther towards the middle then a lot of Democrats would like, but at this point no one gives a shit because they are sick of being pushed around by the GOP.

[Lord Poe]

Well, let's face it, political leaders nowadays are just avatars for their parties. It's not like Henry Ford, running roughshod over the company and ruling with an iron fist. But the same logic applies: just replace "employee" or "manager" with "supplier" or "outsourcing company".

You hit American politics squarely on the head, Mike. Take an anal sex voucher out of the cookie jar!

That's why Arnold Schwarzeneggar would be one of the greatest presidents the world has ever seen. He's a smart businessman, but moreover, he's one of the greatest spokesmen any company could ever hire. He can spout his three catch phrases all he likes, and still win hearts and minds of the world at large. He has a proven track record of making smart business decisions, and more importantly, he LISTENS TO HIS HANDLERS. And he also knows who to put on a team to make him look good ansd achieve goals and who is a fuck up.

[Mange]

The ABB platform is extremely flawed, yes Kerry could make a better President than George W. Bush, but that statement is absolutely wrong. The situation in Iraq will be difficult to solve (if that's possible at all), but not everything is centered on Iraq. There are domestic and economic issues that must be dealt with, and one must take a stand on all the important issues, not concentrate on a single one.
I supported the invasion of Iraq. In retrospect, the long-term planning of the situation after the war was heavily flawed, but I won't change my position 180 degrees and say that the reasons were wrong as some people have done, cause in my eyes they weren't. IMO Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with much sooner. There was no way that sanctions could be lifted as long as that man remained in power, and noone knows what might have happened if he had died as President of Iraq. But I think that the United Nations should have been giver a much, much larger role in the post-war Iraq and reconstruction.

I'm not a conservative, I'm a liberal. The simple matter is, I don't like Kerry but I don't like Bush (and especially not Cheney) much either, but at least he's consistent. Even from my position in a country thousands of miles away, it's evident that Kerry changes position in very important issues. I mean statements like:

I actually did vote for the $87 billion [for the troops in Iraq] before I voted against it.

I don't think that sends out good signals. But of course, if Senator Kerry is elected it will be interesting to see how he acts as President. It's interesting to study the Presidents when you're not directly involved or affected.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You know, it seems that the question here isn't "Anybody But Bush", its "Anyone But A Republican."

I wonder, if the choice to replace the incompetent manager from the "Blue" team with another "Blue" team member, who is untried, and would bring in his own administration, versus replacing the incompetent "Blue" manager with a "Red" team member sight unseen simply because he doesn't belong to the Blue team, would the tone of this thread be the same, or not?

After all. the OP did not name Kerry at all.

How many people here do you think would support John McCain?

[Darth Wong]

You hit American politics squarely on the head, Mike. Take an anal sex voucher out of the cookie jar!

I'll have to add it to the pile that's been building up since last Wednesday. I haven't had sex in 10 days because of the surgery and recuperation, and I'm starting to get really frustrated.

That's why Arnold Schwarzeneggar would be one of the greatest presidents the world has ever seen. He's a smart businessman, but moreover, he's one of the greatest spokesmen any company could ever hire. He can spout his three catch phrases all he likes, and still win hearts and minds of the world at large. He has a proven track record of making smart business decisions, and more importantly, he LISTENS TO HIS HANDLERS. And he also knows who to put on a team to make him look good ansd achieve goals and who is a fuck up.

I like Arnold too.

[Darth Wong]

<snip post which repeated standard statements on the ABB issue without making the slightest attempt to address the specific arguments made at the beginning of this thread>

Next time read before you spout, moron.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You hit American politics squarely on the head, Mike. Take an anal sex voucher out of the cookie jar!

I'll have to add it to the pile that's been building up since last Wednesday. I haven't had sex in 10 days because of the surgery and recuperation, and I'm starting to get really frustrated.

I haven't in 14 months, Mike. You're spoiled.

[Darth Wong]

You hit American politics squarely on the head, Mike. Take an anal sex voucher out of the cookie jar!

I'll have to add it to the pile that's been building up since last Wednesday. I haven't had sex in 10 days because of the surgery and recuperation, and I'm starting to get really frustrated.

I haven't in 14 months, Mike. You're spoiled.

Sorry IP, but I am married, after all. 10 days is a long time for me.

[Agrajag]

it's evident that Kerry changes position in very important issues. I mean statements like:

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion [for the troops in Iraq] before I voted against it."

More right-wing bull and yet another reason I want this administration OUT. Where Kerry lacks is that he can't seem to make it clear that Bush did virtually the same thing with the same bill. Bush was AGAINST the bill before he was FOR the bill. He wasn't for it until it got laden with riders that gave his friends a blank check to get more rich. When it was just about support for the war, Bush wanted nothing to do with it. But it seems your point is that we should be for Bush because he hides his lies well? To who? Not to me. We should re-elect the guy because the ignorant can't figure out his bull? Sorry, that's not a reason for me.

I am SICK AND TIRED of the hypocrisy of this administration. Cheney ridiculing Kerry for using the word "sensitive" when, AT THE SAME EXACT MOMENT Bush was giving a speech using the word in the same context. Bush criticizing Kerry on incorrectly calling Lambau Field, "Lambert Field". This from a man who has been responsible for an entire prosperous industry to crop up over his grammar miscues. Enough already. I'm also sick of the pandering to the ignorant. The play of making up terms and then assigning bad perspectives to them when your candidate is just as bad, or worse, like flip-flopping. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH CHANGING YOUR MIND in the face of better information. IDIOTS stay the course when the course is wrong and the latest information demands a different approach. This group must go.

[McC]

As a brief aside (relating to the McCain mention a few posts ago), I was speaking to a Republican friend of mine over dinner last night and he made an interesting point: his party is basically split. There are the Republicans, such as John McCain, and then there are the conservatives (what we'd call neocons around here) like George Bush. He said if his party split, he'd definitely go right to the McCain-type rather than the Bush-type, but as it stands he sticks by the "Republican" party because of the non-neocon ideals being upheld.

[Lord Poe]

How many people here do you think would support John McCain?

That's hard to say. While he has even more bragging room about 'Nam than Kerry, his credibility is probably shot because he is buddy-buddy with Bush now. Sure he's "taking one for the team", but Vet must be pissed at him, after the 2000 smear campaign.

[Mange]

<snip post which repeated standard statements on the ABB issue without making the slightest attempt to address the specific arguments made at the beginning of this thread>

Next time read before you spout, moron.

Next time, please try to adress any problems you have without insults. I started in the wrong direction, but basically I would say that your initial analogy about the factory owner is bad and that it's an ambiguos assertion and totally oversimplified. Politics is a very complex matter, and I don't like the ABB stance while I understand that many people adopt it as the President is incompetent in some areas.

[Mange]

For the record, I'm not interested in a flame war, and I didn't have the intention of insulting anyone. I'm sorry if I did that and I won't post in any more threads that deals with the American election. I'm not an American citizen and the election is none of my business.

[Darth Wong]

<snip post which repeated standard statements on the ABB issue without making the slightest attempt to address the specific arguments made at the beginning of this thread>

Next time read before you spout, moron.

Next time, please try to adress any problems you have without insults.

No.

I started in the wrong direction, but basically I would say that your initial analogy about the factory owner is bad and that it's an ambiguos assertion and totally oversimplified.

Here's a hint, dumb-shit: you're supposed to explain WHY the logic doesn't apply. You can't just say it doesn't and then waltz off into the sunset.

Politics is a very complex matter, and I don't like the ABB stance while I understand that many people adopt it as the President is incompetent in some areas.

Yet again you demonstrate your stunning lack of intelligence by not even attempting to comment on the actual argument at hand.

[Mange]

Next time read before you spout, moron.

Next time, please try to adress any problems you have without insults.

No.

I started in the wrong direction, but basically I would say that your initial analogy about the factory owner is bad and that it's an ambiguos assertion and totally oversimplified.

Here's a hint, dumb-shit: you're supposed to explain WHY the logic doesn't apply. You can't just say it doesn't and then waltz off into the sunset.

Politics is a very complex matter, and I don't like the ABB stance while I understand that many people adopt it as the President is incompetent in some areas.

Yet again you demonstrate your stunning lack of intelligence by not even attempting to comment on the actual argument at hand.

Mr. Wong, please try to keep it a bit civil. I wouldn't call it lack of intelligence, but rather lack of courage to try to explain this in English although I really don't have a problem with it.

I concede the points. I won't argue about this.

[Edi]

Mr. Wong, please try to keep it a bit civil. I wouldn't call it lack of intelligence, but rather lack of courage to try to explain this in English although I really don't have a problem with it.

If you lack the courage to enter a detailed debate in English, then you should just keep your big mouth shut. If you nonetheless open it and refuse to address the points presented, then you can expect insults and you deserve them. In case you hadn't already noticed that, it's the standard operating procedure here, and crying about being flamed in such circumstances will only invite more of the same from your opponent. It will also put you in the bad books of everyone else, so it is NOT a good idea.

Edi

[Mange]

Mr. Wong, please try to keep it a bit civil. I wouldn't call it lack of intelligence, but rather lack of courage to try to explain this in English although I really don't have a problem with it.

If you lack the courage to enter a detailed debate in English, then you should just keep your big mouth shut. If you nonetheless open it and refuse to address the points presented, then you can expect insults and you deserve them. In case you hadn't already noticed that, it's the standard operating procedure here, and crying about being flamed in such circumstances will only invite more of the same from your opponent. It will also put you in the bad books of everyone else, so it is NOT a good idea.

Edi

Yes, I've now realized that I misunderstood Mike's initial post. I shouldn't have posted at all. If I put it this way, just voting for a person because he's not the person in office, isn't a great way of showing that you have confidence in the person you vote for, and it could be shown later that the person you voted for really wasn't the best choice for you.

[Agrajag]

In another thread I was in, someone was suggesting that McCain will never get on a future ticket as a Republican which is absolutely ridiculous. He kept insisting that he'd burned all his bridges with the party.

One thing we know now is that this party will ride whatever coattails they believe can get them into the office, regardless of the candidate and I think it's fair to say that McCain continues to be extremely popular. He appeals to a large number of Republicans and Democrats. If not for the totally outrageous smear campaign in 2000, he'd likely be in office now. I know he appeals to me and I'd vote for him over Kerry in a heartbeat.

The biggest concern I have right now is that Bush will win and then the dynasty will set up Jeb to run in 2008. If that happens, I move to Canada. <grin>

[Master of Ossus]

It's not enough to simply be different than the other person. You have to show evidence that you're BETTER. If there were no more qualified applicants for the position, and the options you were presented with as a factory owner were actually worse than the guy you have, then it would be foolish to hire the other person in spite of the current manager's incompetence.