Tell An American To Vote

Posted by: 753

Tell An American To Vote - 26/10/2004 14:42

I've just visited the homepage of Andrew Tanenbaum. I am sure some of us have read one or more of his books(did you know he wrote a cookbook titled How to Prepare Your Input?). On his site I found a link to tellanamericantovote.com. I still had last weeks discussion in memory so my mind inserted a "How" between "TellAnAmerican" and "ToVote". A minute later I discovered that it is dedicated to making americans living abroad -- one of which is Tanenbaum himself -- vote and has absolutely nothing to do with the how-part. The little flash movie on top of the page makes me think that the intention of this page is to prevent Bush taking a second turn, but they don't say a thing about who to vote for and why to vote that person. The interesting question that now poses itself is if americans living abroad are such a good resource for the democrats to mobilise voters from, that even a voting suggestion is unneccesary? Or is my interpretation of the flash movie wrong and all it is saying is that your vote does have impact?
Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 26/10/2004 15:27

The interesting question that now poses itself is if americans living abroad are such a good resource for the democrats to mobilise voters from, that even a voting suggestion is unneccesary?"

One would think so, given the kind of challenging being an American abroad these days elicits, but some ARE abroad at least partially because they've become disenchanted with their country, and no demographic has a corner on apathy, especially if rooted in disillusionment...I applaud the effort, particularly a nonpartisan one!
Posted by: Dignan

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 26/10/2004 15:34

Hasn't the absentee ballot deadline passed already?
Posted by: ninti

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 26/10/2004 15:46

Quote:
The interesting question that now poses itself is if americans living abroad are such a good resource for the democrats to mobilise voters from, that even a voting suggestion is unneccesary?


My parents are living overseas right now, and have lived in a lot of countries over the years (Dad works for an international construction company.) They say that they have never heard of very many people voting in previous elections, but everyone is voting in this one. And since they have to watch foreign news for the most part they are not brainwashed by the overwhelmingly pro-war/pro-Bush media like the people in the U.S. are, they are going to vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers.
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 26/10/2004 16:17

Quote:
Hasn't the absentee ballot deadline passed already?


The ballot request deadline has passed, but if you already have an absentee ballot, you can still send it in.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 26/10/2004 17:53

Quote:
pro-war/pro-Bush media


What universe are you living in? Just because CNN and CBS aren't as open in their opposition to Bush as CBC and BBC they are considered "pro-war"?
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 26/10/2004 19:11

Quote:
Just because CNN and CBS aren't as open in their opposition to Bush as CBC and BBC they are considered "pro-war"?


Brad, did you happen to watch CNN or CBS during the leadup to, and early phases of, the war?
Posted by: ninti

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 26/10/2004 19:14

Quote:
What universe are you living in?


The real one my friend. When pretty much the entirety of the rest of the world says one thing, and all the American media says another, which one is right? I think the answer is self-obvious. Yeah, I know a real American would say "screw you world, we are right and you are wrong and we don't care what you think" but that, alas, has never been me.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 26/10/2004 20:05

Iraq right? You mean the stations that said we were doomed because of a sand storm? The stations that said that thousands of our troops would be wiped out as they neared Baghdad by Iraq's army? You mean the stations that said we didn't have enough troops to win a military victory (not post-war)? You mean the stations that said we'd lose tens of thousands of troupes from Saddam's chemical weapons?

If one were offended that the reporters who were embedded with the troupes dared show any enthusiasm or excitement because of our Army's overwhelming military and combat victories, maybe that person should ask themselves why they long to see the military in a bad light.

Besides, two months of embedded reports showing camaraderie with the troops they are with does not tip the scale away from their Left leanings and anti-Bush bias over years.
Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 26/10/2004 21:36


Quote:
were embedded with the troupes


...think about the term "embedded" as, "in bed with"; until the Bushs' wars, reporters functioned autonomously, as in a "free press..." Now they have to be vetted and approved, are restricted in where they can go,and remain on sufferance--no pressure there!
Posted by: Daria

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 27/10/2004 02:26

Quote:
If one were offended that the reporters who were embedded with the troupes dared show any enthusiasm or excitement because of our Army's overwhelming military and combat victories, maybe that person should ask themselves why they long to see the military in a bad light.


They were stationing reporters with actors?
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 27/10/2004 02:35

Quote:
Iraq right?

Yeah, that's the place.

Quote:
You mean the stations that said we were doomed because of a sand storm? The stations that said that thousands of our troops would be wiped out as they neared Baghdad by Iraq's army?

If you are looking for me to defend the electronic media on every parapet, you have come to the wrong place. Their thirst to produce something with zing and their market-driven need to find instant talking heads produced a whole lot of predictions, both dire and cocky.

Quote:
You mean the stations that said we didn't have enough troops to win a military victory (not post-war)?

Gosh, where did they get that nonsense from? Some of those left-wing, liberal generals in the Pentagon I bet. Beyond that, I would think it a bit embarassing to hang a debating point on "(not post war)" as if we *did* win the World Series in 2003, but somehow just couldn't manage a repeat in 2004. Oh, and as long as I'm on sports metaphors ...

Quote:
You mean the stations that said we'd lose tens of thousands of troupes from Saddam's chemical weapons?

Chemical weapons? Sheesh! Who put that crazy idea into their head?

Quote:
If one were offended that the reporters who were embedded with the troupes dared show any enthusiasm or excitement because of our Army's overwhelming military and combat victories, maybe that person should ask themselves why they long to see the military in a bad light.

So, criticism of the media's behavior means that someone longs to see the military in a bad light? Who exactly are you saying wants to hold the military in a bad light?

I think your definition of "our Army's overwhelming military and combat victories" is a little myopic. Have you given much thought to the role of Donald Rumsfeld in overruling *professional* military -- those people who some folks are accused of holding in a bad light -- and pressing his own pet "small force+airpower" conceit on people who actually had a clue? Yes, the US military projected overwhelming, unstoppable force along corridors through Iraq and destroyed any direct opposition, but was subsequently unable to secure the countryside or the thousands (millions?) of tons of munitions now being used against it. Overwhelming? Sure. Victory? Ummm.

Is it only anti-Bush liberals that take this view -- who just want to make Bush look bad? Where does this leave people like Anthony Zinni? It would seem that you don't have to be one of those people looking to hold the military in a bad light to have some very mixed feelings about our military prospects.

Quote:
Besides, two months of embdded reports showing camaraderie with the troops they are with does not tip the scale away from their Left leanings and anti-Bush bias over years.

Your citation of media woe-sayers aside, my point is that the media, in particular the electronic (read: TV) media in the US, gave the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle war machine a big pass. As war approached, they were much more concerned with graphics, embeds and branding than with any critical journalism that might inform the debate. Good grief, your much-maligned liberal New York Times, to its everlasting shame, couldn't manage to ask a few tough questions and about a year too farking late -- on page farking A10 -- says We made a Boo Boo.

Bad news, Brad: the only media who got the salient parts of the Iraq story/deception right were media outside of the US and some of those US left-leaning, commie pinkos who were derided in 2002-2003 as being conspiracy theorists and "unpatriotic". People like that "terrorist" from The New Yorker Seymour Hirsch.

I think I grabbed a leg, and I *think* it is an elephant. What part did you grab, and do you think it is an elephant?
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 27/10/2004 04:15

Oh, and, apropos of nothing (not directly related to this thread), I found this interesting 1996 interview with Colonel Harry Summers. It is, of course, right out of the heart of Soviet California. Just thought I'd share.
Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Tell An American To Vote - 27/10/2004 18:11

Quote:
Stategy?

Aside from demonstrating Rumsfeldt's theory, there wasn't then and isn't now any indication they had/have one, as witness the current stolen weapons cache. Bush has just been citing the great past war presidents, comparing them derogatorily with Kerry (who at least has some idea what war is about) but all of his examples did have strategies, guided and implemented by professional military; Bush has been ignoring the military men on the ground who don't uphold his vision...vision as aopposed to strategy.