Democrats Have Nice Teeth
Posted July 12th, 2004 @ 10:07am by Erik J. Barzeski
Who gives a flying fuck? Seriously!?!
The democrats have nice teeth. Y'know, except when it comes to fighting a war, during which they seem to have none.
Must be dentures.
I'm so sick of politics being "this." Where is a chart depicting the top 100 issues affecting Americans these days, and a sentence or two explaining each candidate's stance on them? Kerry and Edwards have yet to take any stance whatsoever, and the few they've taken they change nearly every day.
This election is quickly becoming two things: 1) a joke and 2) voting for the evil we know rather than the evil we don't know.
I'll be voting for Bush come November, it seems.
Donate Life
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 10:27am #
Or you could, you know, chill and read the article -- and then find out it's a fairly weak-joked segue into a short article about dentistry...
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 10:33am #
That's beside the point. Kerry's wife is "cheeky and sexy." Kerry has "good hair." Now they have good teeth?
They wouldn't frame it that way if people wouldn't click on it. That people click on it is the real tragedy here.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 10:37am #
Then have a go at Slate, and the Slate intern that wrote the article -- I found out via Google, since you neglected to include a link yourself. It's not a piece written by the Democratic campaign, so while any animosty towards them may be deserved, this particular attack is aimed wrongly.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 10:46am #
It's not "aimed wrongly." The whole of America that is swayed by any such crap is the target here.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 11:15am #
Erik,
Basically you are going to vote for President Bush because the media is writing silly puff pieces? Something the democratic ticket has no control over, then that's just sad. I would respect your choice if voted for Bush for if you had a better reason that that.
I think you might have touched on why the electrical college is such a great political apparatus. People are to stupid to vote for a president; they are swayed by the liberal media (most news is status quo, i.e. conservative), political puff and oppositional research; they neglect to carry out their civic duties when it come smallest most granular-local election, the school board elections. Most of all the vast majorities of the electorate are to stupid to care and research the issues they are about the most and let the conscious pull the leaver.
It isn’t supposed to simple, voting should be hard.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 11:37am #
Hi Erik,
please let me declare myself: I am a German.
Therefore I can absolutely say that with right:
American Politics s*u*c*k your mothers d*i*c*k!
Your two-party system DOES NOT WORK! They are ALL sons of bitches.
Your country fights for a democracy which is none.
You stand for freedom even if you have to kill for it.
The American values are false. You are fake. You will loose.
And by the way: You don't f*u*c*k*i*n*g own the internet.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 11:51am #
@ Harald: I don't know what sexual problems you have, but on the other hand, I don't know either what "to loose" [sic] is supposed to mean.
@ Erik: I am a German as well, and of course feel ashamed of the previous poster's behaviour.
Regardless...
You are of course perfectly entitled to any political views you may have. But just because the media comes up with weird stories about previous affairs, teeth and blood quality doesn't mean that you shouldn't vote for that particular politician (and party they represent). If the media you're reading can't come up with better topics to discuss, screw them and remove related bookmarks and subscriptions.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 12:10pm #
Samuel, where in the hell did I say that? I didn't. I'm voting for a number of reasons, including the one reason I did give.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 1:13pm #
Erik, don't you just hate it when people take a single 9-sentence post and misconstrue it as the entire picture of what is actually a rather lengthy and complex opinion-forming process that draws from a variety of sources? 🙂 I won't be voting for Bush, but hey, I'm sure the perfect teeth of the opposition wasn't the deciding factor for you. People just love to try to read between the lines and pull more from your writing than you actually wrote ... Samuel's comment is an excellent example of this.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 1:19pm #
Erik - re: teeth.... you remember the dilbert series/running joke on 'manager hair'? I think the same thing applies here.
My opinion (as a non-american anyway) is that Kerry is the evil you don't know, but that'd still be better than bush. But I have no desire to argue/discuss politics, as most people have made up their minds already and it's like arguing about religion 🙂
However, it is sad that the election of the leader of the free world (or the world depending on how you look at it) is no determined by their ability to lead, but by advertising, negative ads, "leaked information", scandle, etc. The people that are qualified to be president/premier/leader are the ones that could never get there because the qualities of being a good leader are (IMHO) not compatible with what is needed to get there. IE: good hair, teeth, the right religious background, the right look, ability to sound good when you make speeches, etc. There's some old joke about barbers being the only ones qualified to be in politics, but I don't remember it right now...
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 1:29pm #
I read it like Samuel did:
That really seems like you're whining that because the press doesn't do its job you're going to vote bush and snort enough coke to rot your nose to spite your face.
I'm with you that the media is rather worthless in general and slate in particular. I'm with the G*U*Y that our whole system is rather broken. I'm with you and mayor quimby in that the public is a bunch of a fickle mushheads that are easily swayed by fluff pieces and how telegenic someone is. (Although being that one of the president's main jobs... before congress wiped out all the checks and balances and made him supreme dictator of the world... was acting as an emissary to foreign heads of states and religious leaders. It would be nice if he was a 'people person' and not someone that would, say, while meeting some Iraqi religious leaders for the first time mimic pulling out the guys ceremonial knife, cutting a zorro 'z' and then patting him on the head. Yes, bush pat him on the head. Nothing quells jihad level hatred quite like patronizing religious leaders.)
Where I do disagree with you is about the evil we do know vs. that we don't. That thought process works for lots of things, say Clinton. He's a guy that you knew would be screwing around a little bit, but got the job done. That kind of evil I can accept. But there are some things that are intolerable for us to stand by and accept from the president. Preemptively and unilaterally attacking a sovereign nation was a pretty bad precedent to set. Ignoring the Geneva conventions was a huge disservice to humanity, not to mention every american in uniform that's risking their life and capture every day.
As bad as those things happening are, it would be even worse if, after knowing that, we elected bush again. That would send a big message to world saying "Hey, $#%^ you. HA! What are you going to do about it?". But then I'm not the statesman bush is, in his words "Bring it on".
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 2:18pm #
Just one comment to add, because I've seen something appear here twice so far in the comments, and it irks me. I'm referring to the comments by Arcterex and Brendan, here. The president of the United States is not the "leader of the world". The president of the United States is the leader of the United States, just as the Prime Ministers of Australia, Canada, Japan, and Great Britain are the leaders of those nations. He may be the leader of a nation that is currently a very important military and economic force, but he most certainly does not lead the rest of us.
I honestly hope that those are slips of the tongue (or the fingers), and that the idea that somehow the president of the USA is actually dictator to the world has not ingrained itself in the subconscious of Americans, or non-Americans for that matter. That would be a fairly sad statement on international politics.
All nations must have input on the way the world is run. We are not under the control of any government we did not elect. I believe the Americans rejected British rule for precisely that reason. Currently some nations have more say than others. Some act unilaterally outside the bounds of what the others perceive as just -- and I'm not only referring to the US here; in British Columbia (where I live), some of our labour laws violate international norms to which we are a signatory, agreed upon within the International Labour Organization, and the Premier has announced he feels no pressure whatsoever to comply with them.
To get myself back on track, if a nation signs on to international treaties, or belongs to international organizations, it should be bound by the conditions of those treaties, or of membership. To act unilaterally, with disdain for the international community is dangerous. It's sending a big "fuck you" to the rest of the world, "I don't give a shit about you." The leader of one nation should not be dictating what's best for the rest of the world, no matter how powerful (or not) his nation may be. Respect for the international community and co-operation (to the degree possible) are the ideals we should strive for; not unilateralism and self-interest.
Get it out your heads that the leader of the US is the leader of the world; that's a pretty unhealthy thought -- no matter how good or bad a president may be at the helm.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 2:42pm #
Erik,
"I'll be voting for Bush come November, it seems."
Do I expect thats the only reason no... but I did slant my posting to sound that way yes, and on purpose. Over the last few days you have been bashing Kerry-Edwards because of two puff piece stories, good hair and good teeth. Your pulling two little things out of the news cycle, and I'm just pulling two little things out of your posting. Your forgetting the bigger picture and I'm just ignoring it (Erik wants a CCW, thus a NRA slappy on one of many reasons I can extract from Eriks writing to support his pro-Bush ideals.).
I just extract from those two topics the silliness they entail, in hopes to point out stupidity (in general). I know your not going to agree and thats fine with me... because I don't have to agree with you. Your quib is misplaced quarrel seems to be less with Kerry-Edwards and the Decomratic party and has more to do with the a.) the lack of broad news-media ownership b.) a poor choice in where you go for you news.
That goes for Sean too, I'm not trying to read between any lines at all. I'm just taking opportunity given by Erik's post to express my utter distain for the electorate at large, and I have known people who have voted for such stupid reason... someone who liven in my dorm vote for Bush in `00 cause GW had hotter daughters! I think such actions reflect badly on the nation as a whole. Despite the stupidity displayed over and over again by the media in publishing such puff the collective body of that nation is to blame. We accept FOXs News obvious lies, we accept the trashy-tabloid style local news and we just don’t care. We spin everything, as Erik did with the hair and teeth stories, to justify of bias. I believe do this subconsciously.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 3:33pm #
I wouldn't vote bush. too much evil was done, I already didn't understand why americans choosed republican years ago, (bush senior was not enough ?)
of course I understand democrats are not so much different.. ho sigh. maybe just more reasonable with international politics.
why some people say "the president of free world or entirely world ?" because sometimes, many times, we , little ridiculous countries outside of the North American World seems to be despised by usa governments and even some citizens.
worse : USA has power (but should feel the responsability to not use it) to completely forget NATO ,UNO and whatever international organisation and USA has a huge influence over foreign politics, culture, media, and other, you seem to not know.
and , not only political stuff, we have got so many movies where americans people save the world, oups.. america 🙂 (for example ID4 movie, where the president himself save america (and of course just after, all the world is saved , magical 🙂 ) ,
so, some cynical peoples tend to say "USA is the world". but most of the time, is just humor 🙂
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 3:42pm #
amen, brother! maybe if the "dems" had the cojones to stand up for something other than "we hate Bush", the press would have something to run on them other than their teeth, hair, and wives.
fyi, Kerry/Edwards were here in Raleigh, NC over the weekend. Someone I know was not allowed to attend the rally because he was wearing a shirt that said "Bush/Cheney 2004". There was nothing anti-Kerry/Edwards on it, just "Bush/Cheney 2004." How's that for a party that backs free speech and the ACLU?!
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 4:16pm #
Erik,
Although not a top 100, a little research will give you at least some information on where the candidates stand on various issues. Listed in alphabetical order by last name:
http://georgebush.com/Agenda/
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/
http://www.votenader.org/issues/index_home.php
I find it interesting that President Bush uses the word "Agenda", but maybe that's just me. Barring something bizarre happening, I can't see myself voting for Bush, if only because he interjects his religious beliefs too much into his job, which is President of the United States, not President of the United Christian States. And, I hate to say it, but he too often conducts himself as an unintelligible dolt. I still can't get over the fact that he and Cheney needed to give their testimony to the 911 commission together. This is not to say that I agree 100% with either Kerry or Nader. But as it stands now, either would be an improvement over Bush as far as I'm concerned.
Rob
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 6:04pm #
Chris,
I'm not trying to say that the President is the leader of the world.
What I am saying is that Congress very patriotically and very mindful of the constitution blew away all the checks and balances that were a pretty major part of a 3 branch system, giving the president way too much control over the US.
The US is the last superpower, and NATO refused to stand up to us or condemn us, giving the US way too much power in the world.
So what I'm saying is the president has way too much power in the world with out any of the regulations that the US had built into the system and without any looming threat of another super power and without any world body that can do anything to stop the president's whims.
So maybe 'leader' isn't a good word... that implies leadership qualities and that kind of stuff. Maybe 'despot'? Anyway people won't listen to your argument when you start throwing words like that around but the fact remains we've invaded a sovereign nation preemptively, without the backing of the world and bombed civilian centers all on the authority of one person.
Seems like a bad system.
~BS
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 7:36pm #
Perhaps I was a bit blunt in my wording. My comment wasn't specifically directed at the two posters above so much as it was intended as a general comment on a tendency I've noticed. The phrase "leader of the free world" turns up with surprising frequency, and almost always in reference to the president of the US. There are instances where it's used jokingly or ironically, but there are a lot of times where I've seen it used seriously.
The fact that I even bring it up, and the fact that a bunch of us non-Americans are commenting here on a discussion that revolves around the US elections certainly supports the position that the president of the US does occupy a unique role with a somewhat disproportionate effect on the rest of the world. Until the UN, or NATO, or the EU are willing to present a united political front, I don't see this imbalance changing much. In any case, I agree that although the US president is not leader of the world, he does have an effect on us all. Which leads us back to this election...
Though I'm a Canadian, I have lived and worked in the US -- during the 2000 election, no less. I think it's a fantastic country and the values embodied in the Constitution were well thought out and worth standing up for. Given that, and given the fact that the US and its leaders have such significant sway in international politics, I'm always a little dismayed by the way elections appear to be so lightly treated in the US media. They seem far more like TV entertainment than the important event that they are.
In this regard, I have exactly the same qualms as Erik orignally brought up; why turn something so important -- not only to Americans, but to the rest of the world -- into what essentially amounts to a parade of scandals and trash talk? What matters to people who want to make an informed decision are positions on international relations, fiscal and social priorities, defence, research, the environment, etc.; not who slept with who, who skipped out of the military, or who's got shinier teeth. I've lived in four countries (Canada, Japan, the US, and Mexico) and to a certain extent this type of reporting appears in all those nations, but it's normally as a backdrop to serious campaign issues. Why is it that the US media seems to more or less avoid serious debating of the real issues? Honestly, the Americans deserve better, and I think a lot of them want better. What's up with the media?
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 7:42pm #
I would agree with Erik on point: The fluff pieces are stupid. For the most part, I think it hurts the integrity (ha!) of the political process. The media makes it seem like we should be voting for the prom queen instead of a leader. I don't care if Bush likes baseball as much as I do. I don't give a rat's ass that Kerry is a Catholic like me. I don't care if Edwards' kids are cute as a button. I wouldn't care if Cheney likes long walks on the beach during sunest. I don't care.
I want to know whre they stand on the issues. No more, no less. That's why even sometimes negative campaign annoy me to no end. I just want to know where 'Candidate X' stands on 'Issue B' and why that's better than 'Candidate Y''s.
However, I am voting for Kerry. I don't like what Bush has done thus far.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 7:50pm #
Thank you for this valuable discussion.
A lot of words for a whole of bullshit.
@Sören: Schon mal was von Trollsex gehört?
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 7:56pm #
This is somewhat off the main topic, but since we're all talking about who we're going to vote for, I'll chime in. I wish *not* voting said more. I wish more people voted, so that when I don't vote it meant something like "Nobody on the ballot *deserves* my support" rather than "I'm a lazy/apathetic/ignorant ass." I'll prolly end up voting for Nader, but I wish that a non-vote had more meaning.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 8:15pm #
Charles,
A no vote has HUGE meaing, it say you could care less. Plain and simple, what else could it mean?
Between the what 4-6 choices you have any give year for president a no vote significys you have no preference of one over the other. Nader, Bush, Kerry, LaMarche, Hagelin and Badnarik all have vastly different views on a wide arry of issues... so NO means I could care less.
Posted 12 Jul 2004 at 8:56pm #
Charles, You could always spoil your ballot. It has the same effect on the outcome as not voting, but also makes a political statement. I'm not sure if spoiled ballots are counted in the US, but they are in many countries. Elections Canada provides the following tasty morsel in their How Not To Vote section:
I'm more of a vote for who you believe will do the best job kind of guy, but if you truly can't stand the thought of any of them being in office, then rather than marking an 'X' in the box, trace your middle finger onto the ballot or draw a giant happy face or less savoury body part. At least that way you differentiate yourself from those who couldn't care less.
Posted 13 Jul 2004 at 7:06pm #
"The democrats have nice teeth. Y'know, except when it comes to fighting a war, during which they seem to have none."
Really?
Try Kosovo. No combat deaths. Mission accomplished. Regime change accomplished, through native uprising. Democracy installed.
I wish Iraq had gone so poorly.
Posted 13 Jul 2004 at 7:10pm #
"(Erik wants a CCW, thus a NRA slappy on one of many reasons I can extract from Eriks writing to support his pro-Bush ideals.)."
Yeah, Erik's been pounding 40 oz bottles of fortified NRA kool-aid lately.
Posted 13 Jul 2004 at 11:55pm #
Don't forget to check out the Libertarian candidate.
Posted 15 Jul 2004 at 5:23pm #
I wrote: "Yeah, Erik's been pounding 40 oz bottles of fortified NRA kool-aid lately."
Just for the record, this was a good-hearted tweak, not an insult. It's hard to miss the shift from talking about kayaks to the posts about guns.