U.S. ELECTIONS DISCUSSION THREAD

[mouser]

It's funny, but I don't hear the media getting blamed enough for the Bush/Gore election fiasco. If they hadn't called Florida an hour early (while polls were still open), all the hanging chads wouldn't have made a difference - Bush would've won hands down. Given the events that followed, I think the right candidate won: I don't know that Gore had it in him to be a wartime president.

As for the debates, the President is in a bit of a tough spot in how he can answer questions. Consider how much Senator Obama's positions changed once he received the facts available to President Obama (btw, I don't consider that 'waffling', I consider that being rational). So you have one guy without the facts debating a second guy who knows the facts but can't reveal any of them...

Unless something really outstanding happens, nobody 'wins' a debate: but it's very possible to lose one. I wouldn't be surprised if they scrapped the whole public debate system - especially in the primaries, as it doesn't really benefit any of the candidates involved. In theory they should help educate the electorate as to what the candidates positions are, but I'm not so sure they even serve much in that role any more.

Their main purpose today seems to be to provide sound bites for future attack ads...

[Cylnar]

Given the events that followed, I think the right candidate won: I don't know that Gore had it in him to be a wartime president.

Yes, because Bush did such a bang-up job...

[Caspa]

At least Kerry would've invaded the right target first

[perez007usa]

 Are you sure about that? Are they still looking for those WMD's. The GOP can swear on a stack of bibles that they where there.

[mouser]

Are you sure about that? Are they still looking for those WMD's. The GOP can swear on a stack of bibles that they where there.

Doesn't matter. They invaded Kuwait, which gave all the legal justification needed for the war. Bush's failing was going to the UN too many times. After the first violation of the cease-fire agreement, he should have tore it up and resumed hostilites: again, the perfectly legal way to go according to both US and international law. Bush was actually criticized by Republicans for bringing WMD's into the equation (before the war resumed) because there weres so many compelling reasons without them.

Bush did a good job getting the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. He let himself be swayed too much about public opinion and civilian casualties when we went into Iraq. If we had gone in hard, fast and won the war quickly, fewer civilians would have died overall (more would have died initially) and the country would have been in better shape to be rebuilt.

I also think he should have annexed some of the oil fields as US property as part of the final peace agreement. That would have gone a long way to recovering the money we spent. Again, perfectly legal so long as we didn't settle for anything less than an unconditional surrender from the nation of Iraq.

But I tend to be a bit hawkish on issues like this.

[Tessera]

But I tend to be a bit hawkish on issues like this.

Possibly because you aren't the one being asked to do the fighting.

[Caspa]

Just like everybody in the GOP.  It's only ever those with no experience in war that demand that others should go to war.

[perez007usa]

Ain't that the truth. It's not just the GOP, but their corporate masters.