A champagne socialist reflects on Western culture and the Universe... and whilst gazing at his navel, he comes up with a lot of useless lint. It is the fruits of this navel-gazing that form the substance of this blog.
So we should all vote for Bush?
Published on October 26, 2004 By Champas Socialist In Democrat
I think it was Draginol who was saying that although Kerry had won the debates, that he finds the Republican arguments more convincing. Fair enough, but what I don’t understand about the Republicans at the moment is, why on Earth would they choose such an idiot for their leadership? There are smarter people in the Republican party. There are more likeable people in their Party. Wouldn’t they be better off choosing someone else? Wouldn’t it be better for their own cause to have someone who actually understands why they’re doing what they’re doing?

Bush makes the Republican case look even stupider than it actually is. He flip flops about because he doesn’t think for himself. He just does whatever he’s told to do by Cheney, Powell and co. But when he’s actually asked to think on the spot, to explain his position, he just doesn’t know why he’s doing it. We’ve all seen the footage of him being left flabbergasted at press conferences, even when he’s not been asked particularly hard-hitting questions. The press are giving him an opportunity to make his case, but he doesn’t know how to do it.

I can just picture Bush in Government meetings, sitting on the edge of his seat, like an eager little stupid child, watching as these really smart men talk about the issues of the world, using big words that he would like to emulate (or is that emulatate?). I bet Bush sits there thinking “Wow! My Dad must have been really smart to mix with these dudes. They know so much stuff. One day, I wanna be just like them and blow up Iraqis too. They sound like a bad people, cos Dad never seemed to like them. I know how I’ll impress Mr Powell, I’ll say that we should invade Iraq. That made Dad really popular.”. Of course, I may be wrong in assuming that Dubya was sober when he made the decision.

Even if you believe in Republicanism, surely you want somebody who knows what they’re doing to be running the country? It’s dangerous for you to have such a moron having such control.

For an example, look at Australia. The racists didn’t vote for Pauline Hanson to be PM. They voted for John Howard to implement her policies for her because he has half a brain. Howard showed during the debates that he doesn’t completely understand the issues he’s facing or know how to solve them either, but he comes across as having slight intelligence at least.

Who knows what Bush will do next, because he doesn’t even know. But given his track record, it’s not likely to be a good or justified action. If the Republicans lose, at least they can pick a new leader who knows what he’s doing, who knows how to deal with a crisis. The job of US President is an important one that shouldn’t just be left in the hands of any stupid joker with an opinion. You wouldn’t employ someone as the head of a company just because they believe that making a profit is a good goal to have.

Comments (Page 2)
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Oct 28, 2004
I'll gladly go to Britain and rail against Tony Blair, and I'll gladly go anywhere else that I'm not from and say whatever I want about their world leaders. I'll gladly do these things not because I'm an American citizen (which I'm not), not because I'm a Salvadoran citizen (which I am), but because I'm a human being.

Bush has made some bad moves. I am not sure about many of his motivations. And it doesn't help that I'm pretty sure my cat could beat him on Jeopardy. He's opened himself up to criticism, and everyone in the world has the right to criticize, since his decisions have affected the whole world.

on Oct 28, 2004
I must say, as a citizen of the USA I am really, really disgusted by fellow citizen's attempts at censoring and insisting that other's shouldn't have the same right to freedom of speech we enjoy.

Making hasty judgments about who can and can't say certain things, especially when we are all hiding behind our masks of anonymity, is ridiculous. If you are offended by it, fine. If you don't like it, don't read it. But have the balls to admit that the other person has just as much right to say what they want as you do. I voted for the man being bashed, but recognize I have no reason nor authority to tell the author to stop.

And even though I voted for him, I am disturbed by what he has done with that power over the past few years. Oops, do I not have permission to say that?
on Oct 30, 2004
Yes it's a swipe at me. And yes I take it personnal!

You need to get a grip. The man is the President of "my" country and obviously not your country. And as such is a representative of "my" nation. So when he's made fun of in the fashion that was used, in actuallity taking a poke at " my" country. And your attitude sir is why most americans don't give a rat's butt what the rest of the world thinks. And as somone who's not even from the USA, I personally don't feel he has the right to talk about my president in that fashion.


Your president's choices affect the whole world so we do have a right to speak up. If you really didn't believe a person from one courtry interferring with another courtry's leader is okay then you would think that the war on Iraq was wrong too. Obviously you you were all for that (being the mindless Bush fanboy that you are) so stop being a hypocrite.

Oh and you should take it personally, because your leader is an idiot and you are for supporting him.

The "I don't give a rat's butt" arrogance of the US is what makes people want to bomb you. It isn't excusable but it is very understable.
on Oct 30, 2004
To drmiller

Here is a native American with 30 years of military experience and corporate experience saying, The Republicans would be far better off without George W. and the conservative minions that are killing our nation with debt , an ineffective war and economic policies that are not working!javascript:editor_insertHTML('message','')
javascript:editor_insertHTML('message','')
on Oct 30, 2004
Well I could always chime in and add negative comments about John Howard, Jacques Chirac, Paul Martin, Koizumi Junichiro, etc.

Would that be acceptable by your standards if I started saying negative comments about a head of your government or do you feel that they are good representatives?

With the exception for Koizumi the rest I just listed are poor representatives if you want me to break them down.


I don't think Champas would care - he's written articles lambasting John Howard on a frequent basis. And I don't think there are too many French and Japanese Joeusers, so go ahead with Koizumi and Chirac.
on Oct 30, 2004
Responding to the title, not to the message...

I think that there is a good chance for a huge irony, that in the fiercest presidential election in memory, the winner in November may be the loser in the long term.

The problems we currently face are not likely to diminish quickly:
* Even if we capture Bin Laden, the hate wing of the Mulim extremists are likely to pose a significant threat for some time to come.
* The human and budgetary cost of Iraq will be high, and the pictures ugly for the forseeable future, regardless of whether the actual outcome eventually helps or hurts our position
* The deficit is likely to grow -- even balloon
* Gas prices are likely to remain high enough to be a drag on the American economy in general
* Maybe most importantly, the country is likely to remain split between a party that feels fully entitled to power and one that sees the office of the presidency as being illegitimately obtained, creating a white hot opposition which prevents an honest effort to try out the president's policies

Further, regardless of the winner the country's leader will be far from the best available representative of the particular perspective, more of the person best qualified to win a TV campaign than the best person to govern according to one of the two dominant philosophies.

Thus, if I were a betting man, I would not be anxious to bet my money on the winner or his party looking good in two years four years. In fact, I think it is more than a small chance that the winner will do more to unite the opposition than to demonstrate the viability of his own political philosophy.

Of course, there is another side: the winner will appoint a lot of judges, including Supreme Court justices, and will get his way on some significant environmental and business matters -- prizes worth having, to be sure. And, as I heard a couple days ago on an afternoon Fox financial report, if Bush wins, it will be good for Haliburton stocks, and if Kerry wins, it will be good for health sector stocks.
on Oct 30, 2004

Once again, liberals feeling instead of thinking.

I don't think Champas really has looked deeply about learning anything about Bush. Rather, he just repeats what he's been told over and over again.

I meet highly intelligent people all the time who are not good public speakers. Moreover, the choice isn't between Bush and some fictional wonderful public speaker. The choice is between Bush and Kerry. 

I find it unlikely that Kerry is more "intelligent" than Bush. Kerry's thought process shows a distinct lack of logic and reason based on his actions during his life. His understanding of global politics and diplomacy seem almost..child like. There is something infantile about Kerry that I can't put my finger on. 

So our choices are between two spoiled frat boys. But at least Bush seems to have a better and clearer understanding of how the real world works. And if you doubt that, you should look closer at Kerry's record, both in the senate and before.  Kerry, like so many liberals, simply has never developed the concept of being able to fully understand the consequences of his actions. He is self-absorbed to a fault.

on Oct 30, 2004

Reply #19 By: COL Gene - 10/30/2004 8:29:17 AM
To drmiller

Here is a native American with 30 years of military experience and corporate experience saying, The Republicans would be far better off without George W. and the conservative minions that are killing our nation with debt , an ineffective war and economic policies that are not working!


Sorry, but I don't see Kerry doing any better!
And to be quite honest, I really could care less even if you could trace you line back to the "Mayflower". In my eyes it doesn't make you any more right in your opinions than anyone else.
on Oct 30, 2004
Citizen MythicalMino - 10/26/2004 5:10:40 AM

well, the only good thing about Bush losing, and Kerry winning....that postpones Hilary Clinton for at least 8 years.

But really....why do the democrats go to John Kerry? IN FREAKING WAR TIME??????????????? This guy has no solid record on standing with the military, OTHER than something he did 30+ years ago....and even that is shady.

Oh, and thanks for insulting me too, by the way....just love the liberal mentality of justified superiority of ignorance from the left


There is no way the Democrats would nominate Hillary. She is a horrible public speaker and has America even more entrenched against her than they were against her husband in the height of scandal.

Win or lose, the Republicans WILL certainly nominate Jeb for President in 2008. Bush Sr was a horrible President who could not even win an election after winning a war in Iraq. W is repeating all the mistakes of his father. Does anyone think that an America led by a Bush patriarchy is a good thing?
on Oct 30, 2004

Reply #24 By: whoman69 - 10/30/2004 11:31:53 AM
Win or lose, the Republicans WILL certainly nominate Jeb for President in 2008. Bush Sr was a horrible President who could not even win an election after winning a war in Iraq. W is repeating all the mistakes of his father. Does anyone think that an America led by a Bush patriarchy is a good thing?


I don't see this happening! I think John McCain will be their candidate of choice.
on Oct 30, 2004
Other people like catcoblasta have already made most of the points I will now make, but I feel I shouldn't leave the defence of my comments entirely to other people.

>You know I really don't like someone who isn't even from this country making fun of the President of the USA in that fashion.

Then I suggest you get a sense of humour. I have made fun of my Prime Minister and I don't consider it an attack on my country. I have made fun of my Opposition Leader, who I suppported on this blog quite openly, and I didn't consider it an attack on my country. In fact there is not one leader in the Australian Parliament I haven't made fun of, and yet I am a very proud Australian. Politicians are all fallible and it is the duty of democratic citizens to hold them to account. I personally think Bush is more in need of being held to account than most and I am expressing that opinion.

>Oh, and thanks for insulting me too, by the way

Any time Mythical Mino, but I don't see where I did that. If you are referring to my calling the Republican arguments stupid, I ask what did you expect from a blog called Champagne Socialism? I obviously disagree with the Republican arguments, and I was simply saying it in a slightly more humorous way. Lemme guess: you didn't find it funny. Oh well.

>The hate filled left first accuses him of supreme manipulation, and then extreme stupidity.

Well I'm not sure about the rest of the hate-filled left, but personally I accuse the Republican team of reasonable manipulation (not supreme because it failed to convince many of us) and I accuse Bushy of extreme stupidity.

>That is if you can open your mind to new information.

Well I don't see you providing a whole lot of that here. But please enlighten me with your great wisdom if you can deign to do so. I read a lot of blogs in joeuser, and that includes many of the Right wing blogs that supposedly provide most of this amazing info you speak of and I simply find it unconvincing for reasons that I sometimes tell the author.

>Well I could always chime in and add negative comments about John Howard, Jacques Chirac, Paul Martin, Koizumi Junichiro, etc

Okay but you'll have to wait a long time to catch up to me on Chirac and Howard. Feel free to add comments about Mark Latham too if you want. He's our Opposition Leader btw. He just lost the election we had on 9 October.

>As if Kerry's the best the Democrats have. I also like how you fail to mention Kerry, almost as if Americans are voting between Bush >and an empty space.

Possibly he's not. But what the Australian media has shown me of Kerry at work has impressed me greatly. He comes across to me as informed, strong and intelligent. I didn't mention Kerry because that's not the topic of this article. Pure and simple. I also didn't mention the leader of the Libertarians or the Greens. Does that mean I think this is a two horse race simply because the Centre-Right media portrays it as such? I would probably support the Greens leader if I knew about him, but I don't so I don't comment. I like what I've seen of Kerry, but I don't have anything new to add to what has already been said about him.

>You need to get a grip. The man is the President of "my" country and obviously not your country. And as such is a representative of "my" >nation. So when he's made fun of in the fashion that was used, in actuallity taking a poke at " my" country. And your attitude sir is why >most americans don't give a rat's butt what the rest of the world thinks. And as somone who's not even from the USA, I personally don't >feel he has the right to talk about my president in that fashion.

What about when Bush criticises my Oppositon Leader? The Right can dish it out.... You seem to want all the praise from your actions but none of the criticism when you make mistakes. My Prime Minister's son is currently in America helping the Bush campaign and the PM has exressed his hope that Bush will win. I don't see you complaining about Australia's involvement then.
I am by no means an anti-American. I am what you would call a left winger (I think these labels are silly but let's save that for another time) and I am critical of the Right. I'm friends with Americans and I actually quite often stick up for Americans against some of the racist anti-American generalisations I hear in Australia. But I do not like every American and I do not like every Australian. And I wholeheartedly disagree with Bush. I take the piss out of him just like I take the piss out of everyone.

What about when Bush criticised the President of Iraq? Was that a swipe at the entire nation and all its people? If so, then I am concerned that the USA is involved in Iraq militarily because I had been led to believe you had admirable intentions, if not admirable methods.

What about when Bush took swipes at the UN? Does that mean he hates every person in over 100 countries? He really is more of a worry than I had realised then.

The actions of Bush have far wider implications than just for Americans. Awful as John Howard is, I doubt he would have pushed for a war on Iraq if Bush hadn't sugested it first. And I doubt Howard will suggest war on another country until Bush suggests it during his 2nd term. Because of this I am deeply concerned by the USA election. The Iraq War has led to attacks on and deathly threats to my country, which means that my life is endangered by it. Many Australians have already lost their lives in Iraq or in Indonesia because of this war. I pray that the American voters do not exacerbate these problems. The USA's military actions have become so far-reaching that it is almost at the point where countries like Australia deserve to get a vote on USA elections.

>I'm a little sick and tired of people who don't live here saying that we're a bad country because of what's going on in Iraq.

Me too. America is not a bad country. There are a lot of beautiful people there. Without America, we would have no rock n roll. We would have no jazz. No hippies. Too few multicultural societies. No Martin Luther King. We wouldn't have Broadway musicals. We wouldn't have many of my favourite movies like Casablanca, Notting Hill and Return to Me. Russell Crowe wouldn't have got a job in Beautiful Mind. I have 3 heroes and one of them is the American philosopher Judith Butler. I just think the USA Government has made a complete mess-up of Iraq.

>everyone in the world has the right to criticize, since his decisions have affected the whole world.
>I must say, as a citizen of the USA I am really, really disgusted by fellow citizen's attempts at censoring and insisting that other's >shouldn't have the same right to freedom of speech we enjoy.

Nail on the head, thankyou.

>Draginol: I don't think Champas really has looked deeply about learning anything about Bush. Rather, he just repeats what he's been >told over and over again.

No offence Draginol, but why is it that whenever the Right believe something, they are enlightened thinkers and when the Left believes something we're all just a bunch of sheep? My assessment of Bush is that there is more to it than a simple lack of ability at public speaking.

>I find it unlikely that Kerry is more "intelligent" than Bush. Kerry's thought process shows a distinct lack of logic >and reason based on >his actions during his life. His understanding of global politics and diplomacy seem almost..child like. There is >something infantile >about Kerry that I can't put my finger on.

Well until you do put your finger on it, I am unlikely to be convinced by your assessment of Kerry. I outlined several reasons why I think John Howard is a foreign affairs klutz and I have also outlined several reasons why I think Bush is poor at foreign relations. There are many more reasons I haven't gone into, but I feel Bush, like Howard, suffers from a problem of shooting off his mouth about foreign countries in a way that is detrimental to diplomacy. What I have seen of Kerry has shown him to be a very well-reasoned man, about as intelligent as Bush Senior was.

on Oct 30, 2004

Reply #26 By: Champas Socialist - 10/30/2004 10:53:29 PM
Other people like catcoblasta have already made most of the points I will now make, but I feel I shouldn't leave the defence of my comments entirely to other people.

>You know I really don't like someone who isn't even from this country making fun of the President of the USA in that fashion.

Then I suggest you get a sense of humour. I have made fun of my Prime Minister and I don't consider it an attack on my country. I have made fun of my Opposition Leader, who I suppported on this blog quite openly, and I didn't consider it an attack on my country. In fact there is not one leader in the Australian Parliament I haven't made fun of, and yet I am a very proud Australian. Politicians are all fallible and it is the duty of democratic citizens to hold them to account. I personally think Bush is more in need of being held to account than most and I am expressing that opinion.


I don't need to get a sense of humor. If you allow other people to make fun of your PM that's on you. Your not an American so I wouldn't expect you to understand.
on Oct 31, 2004
How convenient drmiler that my race prevents me from understanding. Again, I ask you, why are you allowed to criticise us but not vice versa and why do you accept all the praise but not the criticism? I've put this point better above, but it seems it was too long for you to cope with.
on Oct 31, 2004

Reply #28 By: Champas Socialist - 10/31/2004 12:00:04 AM
How convenient drmiler that my race prevents me from understanding. Again, I ask you, why are you allowed to criticise us but not vice versa and why do you accept all the praise but not the criticism? I've put this point better above, but it seems it was too long for you to cope with.


You show me once where I have made or poked fun at you or yours and I'll not only shut-up but I'll apoligize too.
on Oct 31, 2004
How convenient drmiler that my race prevents me from understanding


It has nothing to do with your race yo-yo. It has *EVERYTHING* to do with the way you were brought up and the values you were taught as a child. I'm not saying that you have no values, far from it. But your values will not be the same as mine. That's why you won't understand.
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last