posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
purplecthulhu at 06:19pm on 08/11/2004
purplecthulhu at 06:19pm on 08/11/2004This is a glorious rant about the great divide between the red and blue States, and the consequences of the recent US election.
It won't change anybody's mind, it might make some Red Staters angry, but I think there's a lot of truth in it that needs to be said.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/07/blue_state_to_reds/
And while we're at it, one thing that's surprising me about this whole election... As far as I can tell, and my perspective may be wrong since I saw pre-eloection coverage in the UK, but am now seeing post-election coverage in the US, there was very little discussion of actual policies. I'm now seeing reports about Bush policies on social security, pensions, healthcare etc., many of which are quite scary, but I don't think I saw any of these discussed before the election. Its as if the US has voted for personalities, and only after the result is know do we see what policies go along with them.
Am I getting a biased perspective here, or was there really little discussion about policies in the election campaign?
The contrast to a UK general election, where there are explicit manifestos detailing lots and lots of policies, with costings etc etc, couldn't appear more stark...
Meanwhile, while the weather is better, the instrument I'm meant to be using is having a bad day...
It won't change anybody's mind, it might make some Red Staters angry, but I think there's a lot of truth in it that needs to be said.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/07/blue_state_to_reds/
And while we're at it, one thing that's surprising me about this whole election... As far as I can tell, and my perspective may be wrong since I saw pre-eloection coverage in the UK, but am now seeing post-election coverage in the US, there was very little discussion of actual policies. I'm now seeing reports about Bush policies on social security, pensions, healthcare etc., many of which are quite scary, but I don't think I saw any of these discussed before the election. Its as if the US has voted for personalities, and only after the result is know do we see what policies go along with them.
Am I getting a biased perspective here, or was there really little discussion about policies in the election campaign?
The contrast to a UK general election, where there are explicit manifestos detailing lots and lots of policies, with costings etc etc, couldn't appear more stark...
Meanwhile, while the weather is better, the instrument I'm meant to be using is having a bad day...
bored
(no subject)
(no subject)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1346642,00.html
So I guess I'm still rather puzzled...
(no subject)
(no subject)
Was it clear that Bush would try to, essentially, privatise large parts of social security and medicare before he was elected? If so, then the Democrats missed a huge opportunity for criticising this policy.
Of course it may be that the electorate cares less about policy than personality, but that would be worrying.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I think alot of people voted for Kerry because they didn't like what Bush stood for, and then alot of people voted for Bush because they didn't know what Kerry stood for.
Maybe I'm just saying there was a lack of policy just in different words....
(no subject)
The Republican platform contains the following (amongst other things):
Unauthorized and unwelcome email, commonly known as spam, interferes with efficient and effective business and family communications. We support efforts to address this growing problem.
(no subject)
I'd then have to ask how much of what Bush has just announced - on social security, pensions, taxation etc. - was in this?
(no subject)
The President is reliant on his Congressional allies to get these things through, so any specific proposal is unlikely to make it through unchanged (not all Republicans will have agreed to the party platform, and some Democrats might be willing to sign up to bits of it, so "allies" is not necessarily "Republicans in Congress"). So platforms tend to be somewhat Impressionistic on the details ...