Take a number and wait until you're called.
Will the Great Western Troika Be Broken?
Published on November 4, 2004 By dynamaso In Politics
I want to preface what I'm about to say with this: I am not anti-American. Like most people living in the greater western world, I have grown up immersed in many aspects of American culture. I spent my teenage years on the Northern Beaches, living in Mona Vale and going to school in Manly. I was pretty much listening to the same music, wearing the same clothes and watching the same television as the kids growing in, lets say, California. I was a huge Kiss fan, as well as Cheap Trick and Van Halen, I rode a skateboard everywhere, I lived for long summer days at the beach and I watched shows like The A Team, S.W.A.T. and Starsky and Hutch. Sure, I also have plenty of Australian cultural reference points, probably more than I do American, but I trying to make a point. I would like to thank Amercia for Chevrolets, Fastback Mustangs, Rock and Roll, Rap, Hip Hop, too many wonderful movies and t.v. shows to name. There are many other things, which we all take for granted, that we pretty much owe to American ingenuity and know-how.

I don't understand what has happened in America today. I felt sure George Bush was destined for the farm, whoops, ranch in Texas? Yet he seems to have won so convincingly. After John Howard was elected here, I was still hoping Americans would see the light and burn Bush. I thought Mike Moore's campaign alone would be more than enough to tip the scales (although I have to go on record as saying his sanctimonious yet self-deprecating ways sometimes make me want to gag). I read about the Yes, Bush Can campaign that changed to No, Bush Can't halfway through because of how many disgruntled American voters they had met. Yet Dubya still won by a proverbial landslide. Was the voting rigged? Did they somehow tape into the average American subconcious with secret pointy weapons of mind-control? Come on, help me out. I'd really like to hear what others, particularly American voters, are thinking.


Comments
on Nov 04, 2004
shows that politics involves much more than what meets the eye...
on Nov 04, 2004
I dont see what it is that you hate about Bush, unless you really beleive the lies that Mikey tells you. In which case, you are just deluded.

Bush is very much the centrist that everyone wants, yet the left cant get over the fact that he won by a very slim margin in 02. So they just set out to trash him, not work with him. They were simply destined to lose.

Instead of listening to the rantings of the rabid, research what Bush has done, and promised to do. You will find that he is socially more left than right, but in Foreign policy, he takes a stand and follows through. One of the biggest reasons that OBL hit us on 9/11 was he thought that we were a paper tiger. And with Clinton and Kerry (if god forbig he would have won), we were. With Bush, he found out we are not.
on Nov 04, 2004
I'll start this by thanking those who have responded so far, although I still feel somewhat unsatisfied.

I don't claim to know the answers, which is why I asked the question in the first place. I don't live in Amercia, and what I know I've only learnt by reading and watching television. I said in my article I thought Mike Moore's campaign alone might have tipped the scales but I did NOT say I necessarily support his views. I don't believe everything any media source says completely. I look for different opinions and points of view. I look for balance. Some of what Mike has said is right, there is no denying it. Some of it, well, lets put it this way, if Hollywood is supporting his opinions and Hollywood is most famous for providing the world with fantasy and escapism through movies, then...

Dr. Guy, I find your statements leaning towards a similar sort of obnoxiousness Mike is often accused of as well. I never said I hated George Bush. I don't hate anybody. But I don't necessarily believe Dubya has everyone's best interests at heart. Lets look at one issue for instance: the budget surplus to deficit switcheroo in the last four years. Sure, you can counter by pointing out the fact that a war had to be paid for but this won't wash with me, considering the reason for the war, the Mysterious Presence of WMD's, are still proving as mysterious as ever.
on Nov 04, 2004
Dynamaso -

It's a difficult task for any of us, with our limited perspective and inevitable bias, to give you a definitive answer. And I would be suspicious of anyone who claims to have it.

Since all any of us can do is offer our opinion, informed or otherwise, here goes.

I believe Michael Moore's Hatefest played great to the liberal elite choir, which happened to include the majority of the old media, gaining it a lot of exposure domestically and abroad, perhaps giving foreigners a distorted impression of its impact, but played very poorly to the majority of ordinary voters, who were unable to reconcile the caricature of Bush painted by Moore with the man they had observed with their own eyes. The pervasive disdain for our sitting President evident in much of the media and among those who consider themselves the intellectual elites angered many people, not just Republicans, though it surely did that, but also many neutral or independent voters. And it must have angered at least some Democrats, or Bush would not have won, if you believe the often-cited statistic that there are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in the US, by a significant percentage (can't remember the number). I also think there was a significant percentage of the electorate which could not abide the relentless, often baseless & sometimes wholly invented, parade of attack stories and the eagerness of much of the press to focus entirely on the negative with barely a mention of what was going well in Iraq. I don't know this for sure, but I wonder how much the stories in the press failing to jive with what people were hearing from their family members, friends and acquaintances actually serving in Iraq, might have influenced people.

No, the voting was not rigged. Because of the heat focused on election boards following the silliness in Florida in 2000, the election was conducted almost flawlessly thanks to very aggressive planning throughout the country - no election board wanted to be under the microscope the way Palm Beach County was in 2000.

As I said, the "reasons" Bush won are far more complex than what any of us could possibly express in a post, but at least you have a little more information and perspective.

To turn the tables a bit, it seemed that Howard was in potential trouble before your election with polls being reported here that showed the race pretty much a dead heat, yet he won with a very comfortable margin, so impressions formed from distant sources can obviously be very distorted.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Nov 04, 2004
dynamaso

Look you may say you don't hate Bush, but there is no doubt that you strongly dislike him because you ask the question of "why didn't Americans burn Bush". If only really understand the true meaning of "burning" someone.... Give me one reason why you hate Bush. Are you truely hate Bush because he ran up a deflicit? Is that it?

on Nov 06, 2004
Thanks to both Daiwa and Chemicalkinetics for their responses, particularly Daiwa. Just for the record: I didn't really think the voting was rigged.

The margin by which Howard won certainly surprised me. I was hoping Mark Latham would win and was most disappointed when he didn't. I didn't know anyone who was voting for John Howard's continuation but then, if I think the way I do, I am really only leaving myself open to opinions similar to my own. Like attracts like and all that...

Chemicalkinetics, what can I say? I should have explained myself a little better. By 'burning' I don't mean the obvious - its a term I grew up with meaning dispose of or get rid of. And as I said previously, I don't hate Bush. How can anyone hate someone they don't know. I am a supporter of peace and tolerance, something George has shown he isn't. I don't like the things that have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan or anywhere that lives have been unnecessarily lost. I don't like that Australia became involved in this ongoing incursion. It seems to me to be a most wasteful, unnecessary war.

on Nov 23, 2004
ChemicalKinetics, in your criticisms of dynamaso, once again you demonstrate your inability to understand hyperbole. It is a problem faced by most of Moore's critics (except people like me of course because I am brilliant).

A lot of people on the extreme Right got very upset by Moore and those of them who are part of JU have thus attributed Bush's victory to the idea that everybody doesn't like Moore. It is true that some of the lies spread by his extreme critics had an effect on an uninformed public who then decided that everything Moore said was obviously a lie. But I think the main determining factor was abortion, stem cells and gay marriage. It was this that mobilised religious Democrats to vote for Bush. There were many factors, but this was the main thing imo.

Now to clarify, I disagree with some of what Moore says and I don't think he's a beacon of truth. But many of his criticis are as ridiculous as they claim Moore to be.

The Howard situation was very different because Australia has compulsory voting. It was the lies about the economy that won the day.
on Dec 05, 2004
(except people like me of course because I am brilliant).


Champas, I do admire your humility ; )

Thanks for your response.

Cheers,

Maso