What Decide this Election In You Opinion?

[Rocket River]

What do you feel was the overwhelming push for the winner?
[looking like Bush]

I think the OCTOBER SURPRISE of this year
was
Osama's ExtraOrdinary Timing of his most recent tape.

To me. . . it was all but a ringing endorsement of Kerry
Which IMO killed Kerry

not majorly but it took alot of the wind out of his sails.
I think people felt
1. They would not back down from a threat from Bin Laden [Adv Bush]
or
2. Fear of Bin Laden was installed on them [Adv Bush]

The tape did NOTHING for Kerry but weaken him IMO

The conspiracy theorist in me says . .that may have just been the point. . . . . .but i will leave that be for now


Rocket River

[Troy McClure]

Jesus, Sweet baby Jesus, the lord almighty, and the good graces of God. What would Jesus do in the voting booth? That was the question on the minds of many voters.

Apparently Jesus loves nascar as well.

[Grizzled]

I think you’re bang on RR. That was the effect and that was the desired effect. Bush has fallen into every one of Bin Laden’s traps. He’s chased him into the caves of Afghanistan (if he was ever even there). He got suckered into an unwinable war in Iraq that not only got rid of one of Bin Laden’s enemies, Hussein, but also delivered American troops to his back yard for his terrorists to slaughter, and even further it put the Americans into a situation where they would inevitably kill and alienate innocent citizens and radicalize them attains the US. Bush has done more to embarrass the US, engender hatred towards the US, and to simply destroy America’s reputation everywhere outside the US than Bin Laden could ever have done alone. If Bush had lost this election it would have been a huge blow to Bin Laden. I think he saw last week that things were swinging against Bush and he knew he had to do something if he could, and he did and it seems to have worked. Clearly Bush has been Bin Laden’s greatest ally and tool since 9/11 and I’m sure Bin Laden is dancing and celebrating as we speak, having successfully played the US yet again.

[SamFisher]

I doubt it; Republicans got more Republican voters to the polls. That was it. Simple and cliched but true

Even with record turnout, a full 40% of people -- 90 million or so, didn't even bother to show up. That's still embarrassing, IMO.

[JPM0016]

The thing i find most interesting is all the hype over the young vote and yet the exact same amount came out as 2000. If Howard Dean's grassroots movement, the war in Iraq and a fear of a possible draft couldn't convince those voters to come out, nothing will.

[Sishir Chang]

According to the exit polls the surprise issue was "moral values."

I read that to be opposition to gay marriage and is reflected in everyone of the state Ammendments / referendums on the issue passing easily.

While the war and economy were important issues I think fear of gay marriage really got socially conservatives voters to turn out.

[ROCKSS]

IMO Kerry didnt do enough to show his "plan". I voted for Bush simply because he was the lesser of two evils and I couldnt get on board with JK. It`s easy to be an arm chair QB and second guess someone but if you cannot get your plan out in the world of 2 minute sound bites your not going to sway the majority of voters. I think JK had a few excellent points and I would hope he would work with Bush to outline his strategy......I`m more concerned with getting this country back on top and I dont care if there Red or Blue as long as they get the job done

[Deckard]

Stupidity.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
According to the exit polls the surprise issue was "moral values."

I read that to be opposition to gay marriage and is reflected in everyone of the state Ammendments / referendums on the issue passing easily.

While the war and economy were important issues I think fear of gay marriage really got socially conservatives voters to turn out.

I feel sick.

[ROXRAN]

Wisdom...

:)

[esse]

Extreme lefties (M.Moore, Hollywood, moveon.org, etc...)screw it all up for middle class family democrats and independents.
Way to go "conspiracy/he knew/halliburton is the devil" idiots!
Way to reprazent. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Still, its virtually impossible to unseat a president in time of war.

Even more relvant, Teresa Heinze is a f***ing WHACKO!
Can you imagine her as 1st lady?!?!?!?!
Whewwwwww! Thank God and God Bless America.:D

[RocketMan Tex]

In my opinion, what decided this election is John Kerry's lack of charisma and the manner in which he ran his campaign at the beginning. For all of Bill Clinton's foibles, and he has many, he still was an excellent campaigner with an uncanny ability to "connect" to people. If Clinton had been running against W, he would have beaten him in a landslide. Clinton also knew how to surround himself with people who know how to run a campaign. Notice that the 2004 race didn't really start getting close until people like Joe Lockhart joined Kerry's campaign.

[bnb]

Do you think...maybe...the incredible smuggness by many on the left...and the Democrats decision to test whether, in fact, a potted plant could beat George Bush may have had an impact???

The Democrats needed a cadidate who inspired vision. In his own way, George does this (it's not a vision i share...but i can understand why some people vote for him without reducing their motives to self interest, or stupidity). I think that Kerry failed to deliver here, and was thus vulnerable to the nit picky (and often unjustified) attacks on his past.

The Democrats failed to understand the appeal of George Bush and to therefore address those values (which I believe are far less intollerant than they portray) -- instead, leaving many to focus on Kerry's potential flaws rather than being more critical of George's record. They chose the devil they know...

[Supermac34]

Money.

Pure and simple.

Most Americans aren't doing that bad financially. Kerry couldn't convince America that the economy is worse than it really is.

It is incredibly hard to beat a sitting President if the economy is not in a down-turn or recession. He is a known value, so your pocketbook is more predictable.

[Grizzled]

Originally posted by SamFisher
I doubt it; Republicans got more Republican voters to the polls. That was it. Simple and cliched but true

Even with record turnout, a full 40% of people -- 90 million or so, didn't even bother to show up. That's still embarrassing, IMO.

Bin Laden’s comments could have put enough doubt in the minds of some people who were thinking of voting Democrat that they just decided not to vote, and to leave it up to others to decide. “I can’t bring myself to vote Republican but I’m not sure if voting for Kerry is the right thing anymore so I just won’t vote …” Or, they just maybe they didn’t get around to voting because they were conflicted and they never resolved the conflict. Not voting is a statement of something too.

[Grizzled]

Originally posted by bnb
The Democrats needed a cadidate who inspired vision. In his own way, George does this (it's not a vision i share...but i can understand why some people vote for him without reducing their motives to self interest, or stupidity). I think that Kerry failed to deliver here, and was thus vulnerable to the nit picky (and often unjustified) attacks on his past.

The Democrats failed to understand the appeal of George Bush and to therefore address those values (which I believe are far less intollerant than they portray) -- instead, leaving many to focus on Kerry's potential flaws rather than being more critical of George's record. They chose the devil they know...

I agree with this too, strongly in fact. In the postmodernist/poststructuralist influenced mindset of liberal/progressive/left leaning thinking and politics in the US and Canada in the last couple of decades there is no such thing as a grand vision, a larger structure, so they have never even really tried to clearly define one. This wasn’t true of the progressives of previous generations, Tommy Douglas, who is currently leading a CBC competition as the Greatest Canadian, had a greater vision for a better society, and clearly that still resonates with Canadians today, almost 25 years after his death and almost 40 years since he led a government. A progressive broad based vision for a better society is what the progressives need to develop to win future elections.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by Supermac34
Money.

Pure and simple.

Most Americans aren't doing that bad financially. Kerry couldn't convince America that the economy is worse than it really is.

It is incredibly hard to beat a sitting President if the economy is not in a down-turn or recession. He is a known value, so your pocketbook is more predictable.

That theory doesn't wash. GDP and job growth have been average to mediocre recently, but I doubt Joe citizen knows that. Consumer confidence meanwhile, which is the best indicator there is as to economic perception, took a dive jsut last week.

In addition, while GDP, and hence incomes are going up, the vast bulk of that has been concentrated at the top; that doesn't explain why people in West VA would vote for Bush.

[Cohen]

Kerry's failure to connect lost it for him. Some people have it, others don't. He had the opportunity and failed.

[Cohen]

Originally posted by ROXRAN
Wisdom...

:)

Myopia

[Hippieloser]

Bush was the more physically attractive candidate. Since the introduction of television into politics, we've always elected the more handsome of the two. The fact that all George had to do was be better looking than Lurch is damn near unfair.

I also think that gay marriage, abortion and prayer in schools mobilized a lot more voters than any bin Laden tape, botched war or 9/11 did. Americans have always been happy to let their leaders handle defense and trust that they'll do the right thing. The idea of faggots getting married, however, was simply a bit much for them to take.

[AntiSonic]

Originally posted by Hippieloser
Bush was the more physically attractive candidate. Since the introduction of television into politics, we've always elected the more handsome of the two. The fact that all George had to do was be better looking than Lurch is damn near unfair.

But Kerry's taller.

IMHO, Kerry's shamelessly submissive foreign policy did him in.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by AntiSonic
But Kerry's taller.

IMHO, Kerry's shamelessly submissive foreign policy did him in.

or, more accurately, the ability of Republicans to portray it as such to certain people.

[DonnyMost]

I think Bush, and all the arms of the Republican party, did a supremely magnificent job of trashing Kerry at all times, under any circumstance.

[AntiSonic]

Originally posted by SamFisher
or, more accurately, the ability of Republicans to portray it as such to certain people.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I voted against him based on his own words my friend.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by AntiSonic
I can't speak for anyone else, but I voted against him based on his own words my friend.

In a vaccuum? Doubtful.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by AntiSonic
I can't speak for anyone else, but I voted against him based on his own words my friend.
So did the majority of Bush voters.

It's pretty funny how some on the left are portraying this as people being 'duped' into voting for Bush. They just can't accept the fact that their views are in the (vocal) minority with the American people.

[Grizzled]

Originally posted by DonnyMost
I think Bush, and all the arms of the Republican party, did a supremely magnificent job of trashing Kerry at all times, under any circumstance.

From a foreigners standpoint I find statements like this strange. Bush was brutal. He’s not well spoken. His positions are narrow minded, simple minded, and often blatantly untrue. How could anybody fall for that? But perhaps Kerry was worse. Bush’s positions are easily debunkable but Kerry was never really able to do this. In the end, if you’re choosing between dumb and dumber, dumb may not look so bad. Your system really works against allowing competent people to become heads of your two main parties.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Ignorance, greed, an inclination for violence, and belief in the supernatural.

[BrianKagy]

Ignorance, greed, an inclination for violence, and belief in the supernatural.

It's always nice knowing you're smarter and morally superior to most people, isn't it?

[Grizzled]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
So did the majority of Bush voters.

It's pretty funny how some on the left are portraying this as people being 'duped' into voting for Bush. They just can't accept the fact that their views are in the (vocal) minority with the American people.

Many of Bush’s stated positions are demonstrably false, so it is a matter of being duped. The people we being told things that were factually untrue and they bought it. Even on moral and Christian issues Bush doesn’t usually have a leg to stand on, but Kerry muffed those issues too.

[thegary]

superior marketing skills. :(

[ZRB]

Diebold.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
So did the majority of Bush voters.


doubtful. The one thing that exit polls were uniformly clear on was that most Bush voters portrayed themselves as voting for bush rather than against kerry.


It's pretty funny how some on the left are portraying this as people being 'duped' into voting for Bush. They just can't accept the fact that their views are in the (vocal) minority with the American people.

I accept that around or over 1% of voting americans chose Bush's version of reality over kerry's. IMO, the facts overwhelmingly support the latter.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by BrianKagy
It's always nice knowing you're smarter and morally superior to most people, isn't it?

Not at all, it's very hard.

[Beck]

Voters with incomes of $30,000-$70,000, which represent 55% of voters, went for Bush.

I think that is suprising. Kerry focused on building a stronger middle class.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[JuanValdez]

The bin laden tape had very little to do with it imo, but the war was the deciding factor. I think Kerry misplayed the issue. He tread a little too heavily there, considering that we've already got the whole world criticizing us for it and still suffering casualties. Kerry had a tough row to hoe in that he had to show that he'd complete the war in a better and different manner than Bush, while not being too critical of us going in in the first place (since most people supported the war on day one of invasion). He think he failed on both parts, (a) making people feel like the democrats are yet another front on which they have to defend their reputations over the invasion and (b) not really demonstrating that he had a good plan to end the occupation with the US coming out smelling like roses.

[4chuckie]

It was about morals, trust and security.

[wouldabeen23]

Originally posted by 4chuckie
It was about morals, trust and security.

The exit polls definitely showed that, with "moral values" leading at something like 22% Lets be get "real" and replace "security" with cold sweat of FEAR....Liberalism and it's penchant for shades of gray and point of view doesn't translate well for voters who are voting based on "moral values".

I think the Bush team really pulled of a coup by making a divisive issue of Gay Marriage before this election. Sam Fisher was right, the 11 states with referendums supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage all passed and all went red. Great way to fire up your bible-thumpin', queer hatin' base--props to the NeoCons.

We as Dems need to realize that we were out-witted in this race by Fear and loathing...

What will the country think when it looks back on 8 years of crooked Rep leadership in the Legislature and the White House? How bad will the debt be and how bad off will the environment and healthcare be? These are the questions that voters in 2008 WILL answer--it's possible that a HUGE shift will occur in 08--I HOPE

[DCkid]

Originally posted by esse
Extreme lefties (M.Moore, Hollywood, moveon.org, etc...)screw it all up for middle class family democrats and independents.

Seriously, I think celebrities do more harm than good for the Democratic Party. Just because people like your music or acting doesn't mean they like you. Sean Penn is quite possibly my favorite actor, but personally I can't stand the guy.

[Chump]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI
Ignorance, greed, an inclination for violence, and belief in the supernatural.

you are 100% correct

when did being smart become so uncool in America? polls proved that Bush supporters are ignorant, the right has finally succeded in making perception reality in that being intellectual = being elitist

[DCkid]

Originally posted by Chump
you are 100% correct

when did being smart become so uncool in America? polls proved that Bush supporters are ignorant, the right has finally succeded in making perception reality in that being intellectual = being elitist
Wrong. They're elitists because they call people ignorant who have views different from themselves. Thanks for proving the point.

[pirc1]

I don't believe they are duped. I believe people just want to believe in what they are told. It's just like you are a clipper fan, during the off seaon the team hires a new coach and says this year we will be much better, you really want to believe them even though you know it will not be true.:D

[Chump]

Originally posted by DCkid
Wrong. They're elitists because they call people ignorant who have views different from themselves. Thanks for proving the point.

views = opinions

ignorant = not knowing the facts

get a dictionary

Bush supporters are IGNORANT b/c they lack the correct knowledge of facts

[DCkid]

Originally posted by Chump

Bush supporters are IGNORANT b/c they lack the correct knowledge of facts
Sorry, but unless you can somehow prove this statement, it's an opinion.

[deepblue]

Originally posted by Chump
views = opinions

ignorant = not knowing the facts

get a dictionary

Bush supporters are IGNORANT b/c they lack the correct knowledge of facts

Calling 59 million Americans Ignorant = acting like an elitist

[wakkoman]

Eh, I think this picture was the deciding factor...

http://www.brendanloy.com/blog/images/kerry-football1sm.JPG

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by Chump
views = opinions

ignorant = not knowing the facts

get a dictionary

Bush supporters are IGNORANT b/c they lack the correct knowledge of facts
LOL, the meltdown has begun.

[subtomic]

I think the gay marriage issue was key, but you can't totally say the Republicans are the cause. GLAAD and the other gay rights organizations forced the issue into public consciousness with their lawsuit in Massachussets (Lawrence v. TX began before the Bush Administration). As I've said before, they've done a piss-poor job humanizing themselves and have thus allowed Hollywood freaks like Melissa Etheridge and Anne Heche to become the default face of homosexuality. If they were serious about changing the hearts and minds of people, they would have respectable, attractive and middle-class examples representing them in the press. But they didn't, and so when the Republicans screamed "Gay marriage is anti-family," the average American thinks of Melissa Etheridge having David Crosby's baby and agrees. The Republicans used the ammunition given to them.

I wish everyone viewed gay marriage as harmless as I do, but they don't. It's up to GLAAD to play politics better than they have, and up to the Democratic party to make sure they stay in line.

[4chuckie]

Originally posted by Chump
views = opinions

ignorant = not knowing the facts

get a dictionary

Bush supporters are IGNORANT b/c they lack the correct knowledge of facts

Wow we are all dumb. But we control the white house, house, congress and soon the supreme court. Pretty good for a bunch of dummies :)

Up until yesterday you were claiming the American Public was smart enough to make decisions and you know what they did and we did a great job.

[4chuckie]

Originally posted by Chump
when did being smart become so uncool in America?

You are without a doubt the collest person I know

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by 4chuckie
Wow we are all dumb. But we control the white house, house, congress and soon the supreme court. Pretty good for a bunch of dummies :)



Yes you do. And, thusly, the Republican party has no excuse for not fixing the economy, the situation in Iraq, and the numerous other problems facing this country.

Why?

Because if the Republican party pushes the country further into the sinkhole during the next four years, i.e. if Iraq truly becomes Vietnam II and if there continues to be a lack of jobs in this country, you won't see another Republican president until the election of 2020.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
Because if the Republican party pushes the country further into the sinkhole during the next four years, i.e. if Iraq truly becomes Vietnam II and if there continues to be a lack of jobs in this country, you won't see another Republican president until the election of 2020.

Political analyst, Rocketman Tex, 4 years ago this month:
http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=173651#post173651

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
If Junior ever becomes President (and ultimately I believe he will), his "holier than thou" behavior since election day and his inevitable ineptitude at getting anything done in Washington will more than guarantee a Democratic landslide in 2004.

I feel sorry for the stumblebum. I really do!

[Deckard]

After some reflection, and I'm sure I'll have some more to say later, I think Kerry lost when he said that he wouldn't have done anything differently in Iraq. I was astonished, as were millions of Democrats, I'm sure, that he threw away one of the most powerful issues he could have run on. Once he opened his mouth about that, he gave Rove what he needed to attack Kerry as a "flip-flopper." When Kerry realized his gaffe, and began to criticize how Bush was running the war, he got hammered for changing his position. Many Democrats, who weren't paying attention, bought in to the "Kerry would run the war the same way as Bush" thing. That, with the stupid convention, were the biggest roadblocks for Kerry winning, and he placed them there himself.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[Chump]

Originally posted by DCkid
Sorry, but unless you can somehow prove this statement, it's an opinion.

62% of Republicans believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks

the list goes on and on, there was a report out a month or so ago that detailed how deeply what Republicans believe about the WOT and Bush to be false, that is ignorance

[TheFreak]

Originally posted by Deckard
Stupidity.

I guess the Era of Civility is over.

[TheFreak]

Originally posted by Chump
you are 100% correct

when did being smart become so uncool in America? polls proved that Bush supporters are ignorant, the right has finally succeded in making perception reality in that being intellectual = being elitist

So the Democratic voters who get duped into voting on the wrong day, or the ones who can't figure out what hole to punch on a ballot- are they just doing that to be cool?

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by Clutch
Political analyst, Rocketman Tex, 4 years ago this month:
http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=173651#post173651

:D:D:D

Never trust a man with search capabilities!

And I stand by my 2000 statement. The Democrats picked the wrong guy to run.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot....9/11 changed everything!

[Deckard]

Originally posted by TheFreak
I guess the Era of Civility is over.
Why do you say that? I didn't call you stupid. If you think I did, then you have an active imagination. I think the country just did something very stupid by re-electing someone I think is a disaster for the United States. That's my opinion. Don't take it personally.




Keep D&D Civil!!

[4chuckie]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
Yes you do. And, thusly, the Republican party has no excuse for not fixing the economy, the situation in Iraq, and the numerous other problems facing this country.

Why?

Because if the Republican party pushes the country further into the sinkhole during the next four years, i.e. if Iraq truly becomes Vietnam II and if there continues to be a lack of jobs in this country, you won't see another Republican president until the election of 2020.

We need a challenge. Great news is if the Republicans can do a decent job with Rudy waiting in the wings, the Dems may not sniff the White House for 12 years.

[pirc1]

I could really care less about Republicans or Democrates as long as I believe they are doing a good job for the country. I don't want far right republicans like Bush nor do I want far left democrates. I want some main stream down the middle moderates like Clinton. If Rudy G. can be a moderate all the more power to him.

Mark

[No Worries]

Republican turnout in the swing states was ultimately the deciding factor. (The Democratic expectation of a high voter turnout helping their cause was as it turns out a bad strategy.)

Credit goes to Rove et. al. for their campaign strategy and their on-the-ground operations. This is a blueprint for the Republicans staying in control the presidency and the Congress for a long time to come.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by 4chuckie
We need a challenge. Great news is if the Republicans can do a decent job with Rudy waiting in the wings, the Dems may not sniff the White House for 12 years.

I agree with you for the most part. If the Repubs do a great job the next 4 years, it will be harder for the Dems to become competitive again.

I, for one, think the Republicans have a big challenge, with all of the huge problems facing this country. Will they focus on issues such as building the economy and solving the situation in Iraq, or will they focus on issues such as a constitutional amendment banning gay marraige and trying to repeal Roe vs. Wade?

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by SamFisher
I doubt it; Republicans got more Republican voters to the polls. That was it. Simple and cliched but true

Even with record turnout, a full 40% of people -- 90 million or so, didn't even bother to show up. That's still embarrassing, IMO.
It was the first time I can ever remember high turnout helping A. an incumbent and B. helping a REPUBLICAN incumbent. I think the Swifties really did a great job of exposing Kerry's chequered past and this had a big effect. Also Kerry's numerous snafu's (the global test quote was a biggie) helped his undoing. Besides, folks, liberal democrats CAN NOT WIN NATIONAL ELECTIONS. It ain't going to happen. If you're going to win a national election, you have to take the center and Clinton was the last Dem to do this.

[bnb]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
If you're going to win a national election, you have to take the center and Clinton was the last Dem to do this.

kerry was to the left of clinton???

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by bnb
kerry was to the left of clinton???
Better damned believe it. Clinton was to the right of Kerry by far.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
Better damned believe it. Clinton was to the right of Kerry by far.

Actually he wasn't really if you examine the two - but he sounded/looked like he was to people in swing/red states. And in electoral politics, perception trumps facts every single time when people step into a voting booth.

[bnb]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Actually he wasn't really if you examine the two - but he sounded/looked like he was to people in swing/red states. And in electoral politics, perception trumps facts every single time when people step into a voting booth.

That was my impression. I was quite surprised how 'right wing' i found most of Kerry's positions when i read his website -- especially given the weenie-lefty label he wore so well.

I think it comes down to his inability to connect. This thing shouldn't have been close.

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by 4chuckie
We need a challenge. Great news is if the Republicans can do a decent job with Rudy waiting in the wings, the Dems may not sniff the White House for 12 years.

Hillary in '08
the Dems would be idiots not too

I hope they don't make the mistake of tagging her up
with Obama . . . .

I like Obama but I doubt americans will vote
for a ticket with a WOMAN and A MINORITY

It is unpopular to say . . but i beleive it

Rocket River

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by bnb
That was my impression. I was quite surprised how 'right wing' i found most of Kerry's positions when i read his website -- especially given the weenie-lefty label he wore so well.

I think it comes down to his inability to connect. This thing shouldn't have been close.

Separate question - assuming Johns Edwards could "connect" (and maybe he can't since he didn't seem to add much even though certain admins love him...) and was the nominee in 04, does he do better than Kerry, maybe pick up a lighter red state or two (Ark, WV, La, FL)?

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by Rocket River
Hillary in '08
the Dems would be idiots not too


you accidentally put a "not" in here....

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
It was the first time I can ever remember high turnout helping A. an incumbent and B. helping a REPUBLICAN incumbent. I think the Swifties really did a great job of exposing Kerry's chequered past and this had a big effect. Also Kerry's numerous snafu's (the global test quote was a biggie) helped his undoing. Besides, folks, liberal democrats CAN NOT WIN NATIONAL ELECTIONS. It ain't going to happen. If you're going to win a national election, you have to take the center and Clinton was the last Dem to do this.

the one thing Republicans have is ABSOLUTISM
they are right
they know they are right and
they don't back down from it. . . . even If proven wrong

People like that . . confidence in a sense

The Demos actually seems weak because they will say something like
"There maybe something too that . . I wanna look into it. . . "
as oppose to saying
"Well That isn't right. . I am Right."

Also
I think Demos need to get back to grass roots

Need to get back into the local and state elections with avengence
More Councilmen, controllers, mayors, governors etc
the groundswelll of holding those position means alot

Rocket River
the absolutism thing is not a slam against Republicans. . but
they are very uniform in what they say. . . not many break ranks

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Separate question - assuming Johns Edwards could "connect" (and maybe he can't since he didn't seem to add much even though certain admins love him...) and was the nominee in 04, does he do better than Kerry, maybe pick up a lighter red state or two (Ark, WV, La, FL)?

Yes

[bnb]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Separate question - assuming Johns Edwards could "connect" (and maybe he can't since he didn't seem to add much even though certain admins love him...) and was the nominee in 04, does he do better than Kerry, maybe pick up a lighter red state or two (Ark, WV, La, FL)?

I think he does. Given the right campaign.

This was not a resounding Bush victory. He set the bar pretty low for what constitutes an acceptable job in his first mandate. And just squeaked in. It wasn't a outright dismissal of the lunatic left as some might have you think.

I believe Kerry lost this because too many people were concerned about his 'leadership' potential. Charisma, vision, fortitude. Sometimes we dismiss this stuff as superficial -- but it really isn't.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Separate question - assuming Johns Edwards could "connect" and was the nominee in 04, does he do better than Kerry, maybe pick up a lighter red state or two (Ark, WV, La, FL)?
Maybe North Carolina. America voted their fear of terrorists. If they voted their economic interests, Edwards would had their message.

[JuanValdez]

Originally posted by deepblue
Calling 59 million Americans Ignorant = acting like an elitist

It's funny cuz it's true.

[StupidMoniker]

I think in some ways this election was decided on the issue of moral absolutism vs. moral relativism. In some of the exit polling data I saw, big issues with voters were moral values, terrorism, and Iraq. The Republicans, perhaps especially Bush, feel that there is an objectively right and an objectively wrong side to all of these, where the democratic view is more "nuanced".

On moral values, look at the gay marriage referendums for example. In 11 states that had such a ballot initiative, all eleven had a majority declare that not only was gay marriage not good for them, but it was objectively bad and should therefor not be allowed (I don't agree with this position, but the question is what decided the electiion). Another example is abortion. Bush says abortion on demand is wrong, should not be allowed - moral absoultism. the democratic party says abortion may be right or wrong depending on the individual woman, moral relativism.

On terrorism, Bush says that we can invade Iraq as part of the WoT, Kerry says that Iraq is not part of the WoT because Iraq was not involved in 9/11. We know that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism, at least in the Israel/Palestine conflict, and that is not disputed. According to the Bush doctrine, sponsoring terrorism makes you a legitimate target - moral absolutism. Kerry said that Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, because Saddam did not sponsor terrorism against America (implicitly saying that sponsoring terrorism against Israel does not merit a response as part of the WoT) - moral relativism.

[thumbs]

Originally posted by Rocket River
I hope they don't make the mistake of tagging her (Hillary) up
with Obama . . . . I like Obama but I doubt Americans will vote
for a ticket with a WOMAN and A MINORITY.
Disagree. I think a woman and a minority can win, as long as they are the right two people with a vision. Hillary is guaranteed polarization on the hoof. Whether you love her or hate her, you must agree there is no middle ground.

In my neighborhood, almost every yard had a sign out supporting Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry -- in equal numbers. Based on past experience, I would be suprised to find even one Hillary sign if she wins the nomination.

Both Democrats and Republicans have some real up and coming talent. I hope both parties are wise enough to cultivate these and forego those with heavy political baggage.

BTW, I asked my mother, who is in her 80s, for whom she voted and why. For what it's worth, she said she chose Mr. Bush because Mr. Kerry seemed mean-spirited compared to Mr. Bush. Granted, she knows nothing about their foreign or domestic policy stances. Sometimes I wonder if voters should be forced to pass an issues test (like a driver's test but for voting), but there are a lot of people who make their judgments on gut hunches just like her.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
It's funny cuz it's true.

Seriously, this crap needs to stop. It is incredibly pompous to believe that you are smarter than another based upon who you voted for.

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by thumbs
Disagree. I think a woman and a minority can win, as long as they are the right two people with a vision. Hillary is guaranteed polarization on the hoof. Whether you love her or hate her, you must agree there is no middle ground.

In my neighborhood, almost every yard had a sign out supporting Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry -- in equal numbers. Based on past experience, I would be suprised to find even one Hillary sign if she wins the nomination.

Both Democrats and Republicans have some real up and coming talent. I hope both parties are wise enough to cultivate these and forego those with heavy political baggage.

BTW, I asked my mother, who is in her 80s, for whom she voted and why. For what it's worth, she said she chose Mr. Bush because Mr. Kerry seemed mean-spirited compared to Mr. Bush. Granted, she knows nothing about their foreign or domestic policy stances. Sometimes I wonder if voters should be forced to pass an issues test (like a driver's test but for voting), but there are a lot of people who make their judgments on gut hunches just like her.

interesting
I beleive my 1st assumption was right
Racism is still alive today
as is Sexism . .. it would be foolish to ignore them
I think Leibermen cost Gore some votes . . may have won him some
but IMO not as many

Rocket River

[subtomic]

I don't think the Republicans will run Guiliani, as he does have a checked personal past (cheating on and then leaving wife) that has sunk candidates with similar pasts. It's too bad in a way - I think he is a good administrator who could help find ways for our government to run better - but I don't think he'd want to go under that kind of a microscope.

[bejezuz]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Seriously, this crap needs to stop. It is incredibly pompous to believe that you are smarter than another based upon who you voted for.

Well, you don't always have to rely on who they voted for. Sometimes they make enough of an ass of themselves in public to make it quite obvious... :D

[thumbs]

Originally posted by subtomic
I don't think the Republicans will run Guiliani, as he does have a checked personal past (cheating on and then leaving wife) that has sunk candidates with similar pasts. It's too bad in a way - I think he is a good administrator who could help find ways for our government to run better - but I don't think he'd want to go under that kind of a microscope.
If we the people are fortunate, Mr. Bush will replace Mr. Ashcroft with Mr. Guiliani. Mr. Ashcroft will then be free to go on an extended fact-finding tour in lower Madagascar.:)

[ZRB]

Lets face it. The Republican machine was just better. Diebold Electronic Voting machine, that is...

[JPM0016]

Originally posted by ZRB
Lets face it. The Republican machine was just better. Voting machine, that is...

Yep, that must have been it :rolleyes:

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Seriously, this crap needs to stop. It is incredibly pompous to believe that you are smarter than another based upon who you voted for.

What if you voted for Smartie Jones over Dumbo? :confused:

[ZRB]

Diebold promised to give Ohio to Bush, and I think that's exactly what happened. Not to mention Florida...

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by ZRB
Diebold promised to give Ohio to Bush, and I think that's exactly what happened. Not to mention Florida...

How many times can you repeat this?

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

[ZRB]

Sour grapes?

There were reports of people filling out electronic ballots for Kerry, and then the confirmation screen showing that they had voted republican across the board. Some people caught it, but I wonder how many Kerry voters didn't notice?

Without a paper trail, in a race decided by only 140,000 votes, I will never accept Bush as the legitimate president. My alliegence goes to John Kerry, President of the Northeast, North Midwest, and West Coast.

[BrianKagy]

ZRB takes this BBS places that vaovaivan, LHutz, and A-Train could only dream of.

[Manny Ramirez]

Originally posted by ZRB
Sour grapes?

There were reports of people filling out electronic ballots for Kerry, and then the confirmation screen showing that they had voted republican across the board. Some people caught it, but I wonder how many Kerry voters didn't notice?

Without a paper trail, in a race decided by only 140,000 votes, I will never accept Bush as the legitimate president. My alliegence goes to John Kerry, President of the Northeast, North Midwest, and West Coast.

Meet ZRB - VP of the Milennium Confederacy

[JPM0016]

Originally posted by ZRB
Sour grapes?


Time to go back where its most comfortable

Link (http://bbs.clutchfans.net/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=9)

[gwayneco]

Originally posted by Deckard
Why do you say that? I didn't call you stupid. If you think I did, then you have an active imagination. I think the country just did something very stupid by re-electing someone I think is a disaster for the United States. That's my opinion. Don't take it personally.




Keep D&D Civil!!

But if I am part of the country that voted for Bush, aren't you calling me stupid?

It probably wasn't the smartest thing in the world for the Dems to elect a liberal Senator from the Northeast. The real JFK is the only Dem fitting that description that has won in the last 50 years, and he barely did it. On the other hand, the only 3 times in the last 10 elections that they have won they did so with Southern governors. They really need a guy who can disrupt the Rep stranglehold on the South and Midwest (excluding the upper Midwest). With the the electoral college so closely divided, picking off one or two of the states will go a long way toward helping them win. Having a (slightly) different message would help too.

[KePoW]

Originally posted by ZRB
Without a paper trail, in a race decided by only 140,000 votes, I will never accept Bush as the legitimate president. My alliegence goes to John Kerry, President of the Northeast, North Midwest, and West Coast.

LMAO...this is pure comedy. I seriously could not stop laughing for the past 5 minutes before I just hit Reply

do any of you other liberals think this too?

[ZRB]

Oh, very soon you won't be laughing.



The Democrats are on the verge of making a huge mistake here. Trying to "unify the country around the president" is exactly what they did in 2001-2. That, aside from the massive election fraud that I'm sure will never be proven, is the reason Kerry and his party had a bad night.

Progressives, and the entire Democratic Party, need to stay on W's ass for as long as he's in office. They need to start talking about impeachment. They need to turn every negative story into a scandal, because there are always plenty of horrible stories during a Bush presidency. If the Democrats show any sign that they consider Bush a legitimate president, then there is NO hope for this country.


Kerry needs to lead the charge. Everyone else with a shread of progressive blood left needs to follow.

Don't fall for Bush's crap. He is only going to get worse.

Impeach Bush!

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
How many times can you repeat this?

Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Don't take ZRB seriously, texx. Nobody else does.

[Manny Ramirez]

Originally posted by ZRB
Oh, very soon you won't be laughing.



The Democrats are on the verge of making a huge mistake here. Trying to "unify the country around the president" is exactly what they did in 2001-2. That, aside from the massive election fraud that I'm sure will never be proven, is the reason Kerry and his party had a bad night.

Progressives, and the entire Democratic Party, need to stay on W's ass for as long as he's in office. They need to start talking about impeachment. They need to turn every negative story into a scandal, because there are always plenty of horrible stories during a Bush presidency. If the Democrats show any sign that they consider Bush a legitimate president, then there is NO hope for this country.


Kerry needs to lead the charge. Everyone else with a shread of progressive blood left needs to follow.

Don't fall for Bush's crap. He is only going to get worse.

Impeach Bush!

Looks like someone hasn't seen this sticky or at least have not read it:

[ZRB]

Feel free to try and paint me as a troll, or whatever. I've been through all that. It's just a pathetic way of admitting that you've lost an argument.


I stand by what I said. If the Democrats pander to Bush again, they will never be able to hold power.

[Trader_Jorge]

ZRB, what EVIDENCE do you have for making the claim that Diebold altered the results? Please share what information you have that John Kerry does not have. Kerry accepted the results. Why can't you?

[ZRB]

The fact that a Bush partisan was in charge of making the voting machines.

The fact that there were malfunctions wherever the machines were used. That machines were automatically switching Kerry votes to Bush votes.

The fact that everyone was talking about how unreliable the voting machines were before the election.


With such a small margin of victory, I need paper ballots. Not machines programmed by a Neocon.

I'm sorry, but this election is not convincing enough for me.

Anyway, it looks like Bush is getting back in, short of 16 unfaithful electors coming through, or a Provisional Ballot surprise.

Right now, all I want to see is the Democrats give Bush Hell, right from day one. That's today.


Don't complain, you KNOW that the Republicans did it to Clinton, and that ended up costing Gore the election.

[Trader_Jorge]

Originally posted by ZRB
The fact that a Bush partisan was in charge of making the voting machines.
Of course this says nothing about the many people double checking the results and operating the machines. It also assumes that people with political beliefs can not operate a business without politics creeping in. Keeping a secret this large would be very very difficult. All it would take is one dissenter. This makes your theory extremely unlikely.

Originally posted by ZRB
The fact that there were malfunctions wherever the machines were used. That machines were automatically switching Kerry votes to Bush votes.
Please provide examples of this, specifically the vote switching. I hope you have 120,000 examples -- the margin of victory in Ohio.

Originally posted by ZRB
The fact that everyone was talking about how unreliable the voting machines were before the election.

So you are basing your wild theory on idle speculation. That is nice to know. It severely weakens your already weak argument.

Nice try ZRB, but any objective person would laugh your theory right out of the room. John Kerry conceded. He had more information about what went on in Ohio than anyone -- and WAY more than you have. He didn't blame Diebold. He conceded.

[ZRB]

I already said I think it would be hard to prove. There is no record of the unreliable electronic machines. I do find it interesting that in Florida, for example, the most Democratic areas were using Touch-screens.

Look, I've conceded defeat as far as Kerry is concerned.


The Dems have to work hard now to discredit Bush at every turn. They had plenty of chances in the last term, but only started attacking a few months ago. It is easy as hell to find criminal behavior on the part of the Bush 'Administration.' All they have to do is grow a pair and get started. Unity behind an idiot is far worse than a divided nation.

[TheFreak]

Originally posted by Deckard
Why do you say that? I didn't call you stupid. If you think I did, then you have an active imagination. I think the country just did something very stupid by re-electing someone I think is a disaster for the United States. That's my opinion. Don't take it personally.

You said STUPIDITY decided the election. Meaning anyone who voted for Bush is either stupid or acting stupid. I assume that would include people in this forum.

Originally posted by Deckard
Keep D&D Civil!!

Uhhh ... okay? :confused:

[Batman Jones]

I haven't read this thread, but I'll answer the question.

A lot of things decided the election, but chief among them was homophobic bigotry. Especially in Ohio.

[Trader_Jorge]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
A lot of things decided the election, but chief among them was homophobic bigotry. Especially in Ohio.

Batman, please do not disrespect the strong moral values that guide the lives of so many God-fearing, respectable people. In the same way that you don't want them calling you names, you shouldn't call them names or look down upon them. What you call a homophobe is what many people call a good Christian.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by TheFreak
You said STUPIDITY decided the election. Meaning anyone who voted for Bush is either stupid or acting stupid. I assume that would include people in this forum.



Uhhh ... okay? :confused:
I'm not going to argue with you. If you think I'm the problem around here regarding civility, fine. You're entitled to your opinion. If you think my post is that god-awful, then fine, you're entitiled to your opinion. If you can't find any nuance that excludes you from the reference I made in my post, then that's your opinion too, and you are entitled to it. That was not my intention. I certainly haven't considered you stupid in the past, why would I start now?

You should be happy. You won.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
What you call a homophobe is what many people call a good Christian.

I know. That's the chief reason I'm so ashamed to be an American today. It will pass. The trend is good and one day homophobic bigots will be treated just like racist bigots. That day can't come soon enough.

[Trader_Jorge]

Anyone else watching the Daily Show right now? It's hilarious!

"In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote and interpreted that as a mandate. This time, he won the popular vote with 51%. That sounds like a shutout!"

[Deckard]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Anyone else watching the Daily Show right now? It's hilarious!

"In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote and interpreted that as a mandate. This time, he won the popular vote with 51%. That sounds like a shutout!"
Argh! My wife is watching it while I post here. I'll have to catch the later rerun. Thanks for the heads up.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[ima_drummer2k]

I love all the subtle insults directed at Bush voters in this thread. Bush won because of:

"Stupidity
Dumbness
Ignorance
Diebold :confused:
Fear and loathing
Lack of knowledge
Homophbic bigotry"

The best part is that they are just subtle enough to leave wiggle-room to back out of in case someone actually calls you on them thereby making that person look like a reactionary freak. A very lame tactic that Jeff posted about in the 'chatroom police' thread.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by subtomic
I think the gay marriage issue was key, but you can't totally say the Republicans are the cause. GLAAD and the other gay rights organizations forced the issue into public consciousness with their lawsuit in Massachussets (Lawrence v. TX began before the Bush Administration).

I've brought this point up a while ago with some others that IMO the Gay rights movement made a huge mistake in pushing this issue at this time. Up until the MA case gays were making a lot of progress in regards to social acceptance with more companies and governments putting in domestic partner benefits. Once the gay rights movement started vociferously pushing marriage through judicial fiat that prompted a very strong backlash against them.

This has cost them dearly because the movement has been greatly setback by these new referendums, some of which even outlaw domestic partner benefits, and also cost them getting an adminstration that would be sympathetic to their views. What's worse in my opinion is that given the progress that gays were making towards social acceptance Gay marriage might become as fully accepted as inter-racial marriage is now in maybe a decade on its own. Instead with these laws against gay marriage going on the books, a conservative administration in office with a more conservative legislature and very likely conservative Supreme court justice being appointed to the bench legal gay marriage is farther from coming into being than it was just last year.

[Batman Jones]

I agree, Sisir Chang.

When confronted with hate, fear and bigotry, the best response is a polite, "Sorry, Massah. I'll just be in the corner over there expressing appropriate shame for being myself. If you should have any scraps for me, I should be ever so grateful to accept them."

The number one concern cited by Bush voters was morality. That's a cute code word for fag hating. This is (obviously) not a popular opinion, but gay rights are civil rights. And as it was in our last embarassing episode of civil rights advocacy versus hateful bigots, politeness does not apply. If I was gay, I'd be in the goddamned streets right about now.

imadrummer:

I wasn't talking about you when I said homophobic bigotry was the chief reason Bush won, because I know from your posts here you're not a homophobic bigot. I know you favor gay rights. I know a lot of Bush voters do and that they voted for him for other reasons. In Ohio though, and in many other parts of our nation, bigotry was the deciding factor.

I'm not ashamed of my country because so many voted for Bush. I'm ashamed of my country because of WHY so many voted for Bush. For many, for the majority in Ohio, they shouted "four more years," but in their 'moral' hearts (LOL) they thought "no more queers." If those people don't repent for that bigotry before they die, they'd better hope the vengeful, angry god they believe in doesn't exist. Because their hatred would surely earn them a place in hell. Don't get me wrong. Jesus is more than just alright with me. But somewhere, if he's watching, he's disappointed as all hell in the bastardization of his teachings.

[ZRB]

Brilliant post Batman Jones.

[bigtexxx]

Beej, do you honestly believe that "fag hating" was the reason your candidate lost? Morality and "fag hating" are not even close to being the same thing in my book. Christians can hate the sin of gay marriage, but at the same time not hate the homosexual. I'm not sure where you get off thinking that the religious right hates homosexuals. They just hate what homosexuals do. Big difference that you haven't seem to have investigated enough into, my friend.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
I agree, Sisir Chang.

When confronted with hate, fear and bigotry, the best response is a polite, "Sorry, Massah. I'll just be in the corner over there expressing appropriate shame for being myself. If you should have any scraps for me, I should be ever so grateful to accept them."

The number one concern cited by Bush voters was morality. That's a cute code word for fag hating. This is (obviously) not a popular opinion, but gay rights are civil rights. And as it was in our last embarassing episode of civil rights advocacy versus hateful bigots, politeness does not apply. If I was gay, I'd be in the goddamned streets right about now.



BJ;

I can understand why this issue is important to gays and I can understand the passion. For me personally I think Gays should be allowed to marry and think its ridiculous that they aren't. If the issue was about not letting Asians marry whites I would be hard pressed not to be out in the streets fighting for it.

That said IMO the gay rights movement needed to look at this strategically. Pushing this issue now when the country is so closely divided with so many other issues that are important to the movement at stake this might've not been the best time to do this. This was the same argument that I gave to Nader supporters in 2000. The power of the presidency to shape the legal and social landscape of this country even after their term is over isn't something to be lightly dismissed. Just look at what GW Bush has done one term in office.

Even worse for the gay rights movement some of these new ammendments have set back many of the gains that they had made by outlawing domestic partnership. The aggressive push for gay marriage has essentially made it socially and legally acceptable to discriminate against gays again.

IMO all they needed was a little patience. If gay marriage hadn't been an issue socially conservative and devout Christians, many who were uneasy abotu GW Bush because of the war, might not have turned out or even voted against Bush. That might've meant that Kerry would be picking Rehnquest's replacement a few months from now and these ammendments would've never been on this years ballot.

They took a gamble which given the stakes IMO was a bad gamble when gay marriage very likely would become a fact with little fuss in a few years.

[Batman Jones]

bigtexxx:

Everyone has their own belief system and in this country each belief system is allowed and protected. I would die for the right of the KKK to march outside of the NAACP, but I would still call them racists. I would also die for the right of Evangelicals and others to denounce homosexuality as a sin, but I would still call them bigots. You believe that classifying homosexuality as a sin does not constitute hatred of gays. I disagree. And when a group of people identify morality as the key issue in a presidential election, clearly signaling that they consider stopping gay marriage to be the most important cause in this year's election, hell yes I'll call them fag haters. And I will also say I think they are sick and wrong. As it was with racial bigotry, I deeply believe it is with bigotry against gays.

Sisir Chang:

Good point. Try replacing gay with Chinese in your post and see how it reads. Or try black. There have always been other issues besides basic civil rights for a group of people, but for that group of people those issues weren't as important. For gays and lesbians, many of whom are my dear personal friends, there is no issue more urgent or vital than their civil rights. They're not thinking of this thing strategically any more than blacks did in the 1960s. And they're not interested in polite, incremental remedies. They want their rights now. I don't blame them at all. Meanwhile, no one I know predicted that this would be the key issue in this campaign. Kerry didn't think it would and neither did anyone in the media. It didn't show up in polling or anywhere else as an important issue until yesterday. Yesterday, the supporters of the winning campaign cited "morality" as their most pressing concern. This at a time of war, a time of unprecedented threat of terror attack, high unemployment, high uninsured, etc. times ten. More important than anything else was denying civil rights to gay people. I'd say gay people were right to force the issue. Turns out it WAS a major issue both to the people denied the rights and the people intent on continuing to deny them. I say, great. I'm glad it's out in the open. Let's have this unpleasant fight then. Let's have this embarassing chapter in our nation's history. Let's have it out, once and for all. It's long past due.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by ZRB
The Dems have to work hard now to discredit Bush at every turn. They had plenty of chances in the last term, but only started attacking a few months ago. It is easy as hell to find criminal behavior on the part of the Bush 'Administration.' All they have to do is grow a pair and get started. Unity behind an idiot is far worse than a divided nation.
Time Magazine's Man of the Year?

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
They're not thinking of this thing strategically any more than blacks did in the 1960s. And they're not interested in polite, incremental remedies. They want their rights now.

BJ;

I would disagree here. If you look at what happened with the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's it was clear that the country on the whole was ready to end segregation and give more civil rights to African-Americans. It was only in the South that it seemed earthshaking but by the time of Brown v Board of Ed. many states already had integrated schools.

The timing and embrace of Civil Rights was a strategic gamble but a good gamble which is one reason why the ultimate pragmatist LBJ pushed it through. While he realized this would hand the South to the Republicans, hence where we are at now, he also understood that most of the country was ready to embrace civil rights and that it was only the South that was dragging behind.

We don't see yet where anti-Gay marriage ammendments passed in all geographic regions.

[thumbs]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
When confronted with hate, fear and bigotry, the best response is a polite, "Sorry, Massah. I'll just be in the corner over there expressing appropriate shame for being myself. If you should have any scraps for me, I should be ever so grateful to accept them."

The number one concern cited by Bush voters was morality. That's a cute code word for fag hating. This is (obviously) not a popular opinion, but gay rights are civil rights. And as it was in our last embarassing episode of civil rights advocacy versus hateful bigots, politeness does not apply. If I was gay, I'd be in the goddamned streets right about now.
I understand your cry for "justice now," but I fear you are trapped in a morality play. Let me explain.

When I was young (and you know that was a while back), if a salt and pepper couple walked down the street, whites would recoil in horror. It was wrong, but it was reality. Gradually justice prevailed. No. The evolution of that justice wasn't ideal. Common people don't change overnight. Epiphanies don't occur on a daily basis. Nonetheless, now, almost half a century later, people don't even pay attention to a salt and pepper couple walking down the street because its common and everyday.

My point is that justice is justice and, in theory, justice should occur on the spot. But it doesn't. That's reality. Theory and reality aren't the same by any stretch of the imagination. In your heart of hearts you know that.

Civil rights for all -- regardless of gender, race, religion, creed, etc. etc. -- will come. Change requires passion from people like you crying in the wilderness before the wilderness is transformed into true civilization and the tears of injustice are forever dried.

[Cohen]

Anyone see the German Newspaper Headline?

'Oops - They Did It Again'

[thumbs]

Originally posted by Cohen
Anyone see the German Newspaper Headline?

'Oops - They Did It Again' As if the Germans and French can throw stones. What I would reply to them would be impolitic to say the least.

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by Cohen
Anyone see the German Newspaper Headline?

'Oops - They Did It Again'

Were they referening to the 2nd World War?

:)

DD

[subtomic]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
They're not thinking of this thing strategically any more than blacks did in the 1960s. And they're not interested in polite, incremental remedies. They want their rights now. I don't blame them at all.

I disagree that the blacks weren't thinking strategically. When you look at the Civil Rights movement (which began WAAAAY earlier than the 1960s), you see that the NAACP picked its "test subjects" (an ugly term, but the best I can do right now) very carefully.

When integrating baseball, there was a reason you had a player like Jackie Robinson (upstanding, family man).

When integrating the University of Alabama, the first black students were carefully selected so as not to seem too threatening

There was a reason that the NAACP pushed a man like Martin Luther King to the forefront of the Civil Rights movement - he was a well-spoken, religious family man.

Even with all this, Civil Rights still caused the Democratic party to lose the South when Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress. But the divisions would have been much worse if the public faces of Civil Rights were someone like Jack Johnson or Miles Davis.

I totally agree that homosexuals shouldn't have to hire a public relations firm in order to earn their rights. But unfortunately, that's how politics work for everyone - it's all about perception. And right now, the perception by your average, Middle-American of gay marraige is Hollywood freaks trying to marry (and divorce) even more often than they do already.

Knowing what was at stake in this election and knowing how most Americans (unfortunately) feel about this issue, GLAAD needed to have been smarter about seeking their rights. Thy weren't and the Republicans used this issue expertly to rile up the social conservatives. It''s really too bad.

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by thumbs
I understand your cry for "justice now," but I fear you are trapped in a morality play. Let me explain.

When I was young (and you know that was a while back), if a salt and pepper couple walked down the street, whites would recoil in horror. It was wrong, but it was reality. Gradually justice prevailed. No. The evolution of that justice wasn't ideal. Common people don't change overnight. Epiphanies don't occur on a daily basis. Nonetheless, now, almost half a century later, people don't even pay attention to a salt and pepper couple walking down the street because its common and everyday.



see this is kind of the issue i have
Everything is seen from the perspective of the Majority

I remember in college. . .there was a place called the
Dixie Chicken. . . we were discussing why black Folx don't visit it

I said. . 1st it is called THE DIXIE chicken
2nd - It as a bunch of lynching type ropes hanging everywhere
3rd bunch of drunken college white kids. . .

It was not inviting to Blacks. . .

Then we said how could we change it. .
I stated get about 50~100 black folx to go in
a white Professor told me. . no no . .that is not the way
You should go in 1 to two at a time. . . LET THEM GET USE TO US

What the hell am I that I must be GOTTEN USE TOO????
I was offended . . .
My Point it is. . . me being uncomfortable
Me being uneasy/threatened was OK . .
but heaven forbid they feel threatened or uncomfortable

I don't wanna WAIT
the MEANWHILE folx are suffering
I'm not for Gay Marriage but i DEFINATELY understand the
Gay Folx. . I WANT IT NOW mentality
Why suffer to make the mainstream feel safe and comfortable
when you
feel neither Safe nor Comfortable.


Rocket River

[thumbs]

Originally posted by Rocket River
see this is kind of the issue i have
Everything is seen from the perspective of the Majority

I remember in college. . .there was a place called the
Dixie Chicken. . . we were discussing why black Folx don't visit it

I said. . 1st it is called THE DIXIE chicken
2nd - It as a bunch of lynching type ropes hanging everywhere
3rd bunch of drunken college white kids. . .

It was not inviting to Blacks. . .

Then we said how could we change it. .
I stated get about 50~100 black folx to go in
a white Professor told me. . no no . .that is not the way
You should go in 1 to two at a time. . . LET THEM GET USE TO US

What the hell am I that I must be GOTTEN USE TOO????
I was offended . . .
My Point it is. . . me being uncomfortable
Me being uneasy/threatened was OK . .
but heaven forbid they feel threatened or uncomfortable

I don't wanna WAIT ...the MEANWHILE folx are suffering
I'm not for Gay Marriage but i DEFINATELY understand the
Gay Folx. . I WANT IT NOW mentality. Why suffer to make the mainstream feel safe and comfortable
when you feel neither Safe nor Comfortable.
You are perfectly right in your "want it now" feelings. I agree the better strategy for the Dixie Chicken would have been to flood the establishment with non-white patrons. Had I been the owner I would I have just as happy because the color of the money is just the same.

However, the reality is this. Those white customers would have either flocked like pigeons to another Dixie Chicken-like establishment and returned when times settled down. In the 60s and 70s it was called flight to the suburbs, but we all know the real reason for white flight. As in my explanation to Batman Jones, it wasn't right, but it was reality.

Social change never occurs overnight. We may want it to happen right away, but it will happen in its own time. Think of a movement, any social movement, as a herd of cattle. That herd needs drivers to get them to their destination, but that herd will only move so fast. Move them faster and you lose much of the herd. That's reality.

[The Real Shady]

Originally posted by Cohen
Anyone see the German Newspaper Headline?

'Oops - They Did It Again'

With a title like that it sounds like a very respectable newspaper.

[Batman Jones]

thumbs & Sisir Chang:

I'm not going to argue the relative wisdom of gays playing a smart political game with their rights. I agree with you both that tip toeing into acceptance would be more successful, as repugnant as the idea is (and was with blacks before). After all, it's worked with Bush and abortion. He was coy and slow and polite with his strongly held beliefs there. He didn't want to scare off people who value choice, and now he'll get to name the justice that will overturn Roe, so we see how successful the tip toe approach can be.

I posted in this thread to register my disdain for the people who identified 'morality' as the main reason for voting and voted Bush. They could have as easily been voting against interracial marriages or integrated schools some years back and they would have called that 'morality' too. It is appalling to me that gays should be blamed for this election loss, yes. That's insult to injury. But the injury itself is is considerably more appalling. More Bush voters cited what amounts to their predudice and bigotry against gays over any other issue in supporting him. At the end of the day, after all the arguments of the last two years, bigotry won this thing by a hair. That's disgusting.

[Trader_Jorge]

Batman, morality is much more broadly defined than opinions on gay marriage. I believe it is immoral to denigrade our troops. I believe it is immoral to flip flop on issues to pander to the climate of the hour. It is immoral to plot with the enemy during a time of war. It is immoral to write a book on put a mockery of Iwo Jima on the cover. It is immoral to throw US Military Medals at the Capitol. It is immoral to lie about how 'bad' the economy is. It is immoral to lie about what happened at Tora Bora. And so forth.

Your anger is misplaced.

[Batman Jones]

And I think it's immoral to use lies to justify a war, Jorge. I could come up with several more reactionary spin points to counter yours, but they'd be no more relevant than yours were. We both know what was meant by morality. You were defending anti-gay bigotry earlier in this thread. Why the flip flop?

[No Worries]

It is immoral to deceive the country about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. This is cut and dried, black and white. No other way of looking at this. But somehow the true believers stood beside the President and ignored all of the facts that would suggest that the President was making a big mistake. I think that there is a wedge issue here for the Democrats.

[Trader_Jorge]

Originally posted by No Worries
It is immoral to deceive the country about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. This is cut and dried, black and white. No other way of looking at this. But somehow the true believers stood beside the President and ignored all of the facts that would suggest that the President was making a big mistake. I think that there is a wedge issue here for the Democrats.

As you know, the American people didn't buy this attack on our President. Kudos to them for recognizing the Democrats' attempts at distortion.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
As you know, the American people didn't buy this attack on our President. Kudos to them for recognizing the Democrats' attempts at distortion.

One reason they didn't buy it was because it came from a candidate who'd given the president license to do it. I always said that was a major flaw with his candidacy.

The other reason they didn't buy it, as we know from the exit polls, was that they were more concerned with the grave and gathering threat of gay rights.

Kudos indeed.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
As you know, the American people didn't buy this attack on our President. Kudos to them for recognizing the Democrats' attempts at distortion.
Very superficial read.

You are right that the red Americans did not buy it. I speculate that their faith in the President outweighed the facts, that is if they even considered the facts.

[Sishir Chang]

Batman Jones and Rocket River;

The problem that I see with the gay marriage issue and why I call it a bad gamble is that before this issue gained prominence gays were making huge progress towards full acceptance of gays and gay unions. Many companies and localities were offering domestic partner benefits on their own and gay couples, not just Hollywood types, were out and visible with little fear of social stigma.

Once they started vocally pushing for marriage through legislative fiat that's when the other side started to really get alarmed and successfully push this idea that gays were going to destroy traditional families. In the process they've set back gay rights further than things were prior to the election.

I can understand the passion and agree that's totally unjust that Gays even have to think strategically but this is reality.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
I believe it is immoral to denigrade our troops.

So I guess GW Bush was immoral when he put up steel tarriffs just prior to the 2002 elections even though he campaigned as a free trader, only to take them down a few months later.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
I posted in this thread to register my disdain for the people who identified 'morality' as the main reason for voting and voted Bush. They could have as easily been voting against interracial marriages or integrated schools some years back and they would have called that 'morality' too. It is appalling to me that gays should be blamed for this election loss, yes. That's insult to injury. But the injury itself is is considerably more appalling. More Bush voters cited what amounts to their predudice and bigotry against gays over any other issue in supporting him. At the end of the day, after all the arguments of the last two years, bigotry won this thing by a hair. That's disgusting.

If I had been polled, I would have said that morality was the reason that I voted for Bush, yet I am in favor of equal rights for everyone, including gay marriage. Morality is not code for "I hate gay people." I voted for Bush largely because of my stance on abortion. I can understand your anger, and it is apparent that a large majority in many parts of this country have decided on a course of discrimination, which is horrible, but I would say that Bush's victory is hardly solely the result of "fag hating."

[Woofer]

Originally posted by ZRB
The fact that a Bush partisan was in charge of making the voting machines.

The fact that there were malfunctions wherever the machines were used. That machines were automatically switching Kerry votes to Bush votes.

The fact that everyone was talking about how unreliable the voting machines were before the election.

With such a small margin of victory, I need paper ballots. Not machines programmed by a Neocon.

I'm sorry, but this election is not convincing enough for me.

Anyway, it looks like Bush is getting back in, short of 16 unfaithful electors coming through, or a Provisional Ballot surprise.

Right now, all I want to see is the Democrats give Bush Hell, right from day one. That's today.


Don't complain, you KNOW that the Republicans did it to Clinton, and that ended up costing Gore the election.


It looks like they screwed around with the paper ballots so that's not safe either, but it's correctable, but Kerry didn't have the balls to lawyer it.


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php


Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided—known as “spoilage” in election jargon—because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Palast’s investigation suggests that if Ohio’s discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots.

.
.
.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
If I had been polled, I would have said that morality was the reason that I voted for Bush, yet I am in favor of equal rights for everyone, including gay marriage. Morality is not code for "I hate gay people." I voted for Bush largely because of my stance on abortion. I can understand your anger, and it is apparent that a large majority in many parts of this country have decided on a course of discrimination, which is horrible, but I would say that Bush's victory is hardly solely the result of "fag hating."

Agreed. It's really an easy way out for a losing candidate's supporters to attempt to insult the winning party's supporters.

[Cohen]

Originally posted by The Real Shady
With a title like that it sounds like a very respectable newspaper.

I think it's one of the biggies...big enough for the BBC to report it (where I saw it).

[Cohen]

Originally posted by DaDakota
Were they referening to the 2nd World War?

:)

DD


No, but possibly the 2nd Iraq War.


;)

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by Woofer
It looks like they screwed around with the paper ballots so that's not safe either, but it's correctable, but Kerry didn't have the balls to lawyer it.


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php
I'll take John Kerry's word over some leftwing blogger.

[Supermac34]

Originally posted by subtomic
I don't think the Republicans will run Guiliani, as he does have a checked personal past (cheating on and then leaving wife) that has sunk candidates with similar pasts. It's too bad in a way - I think he is a good administrator who could help find ways for our government to run better - but I don't think he'd want to go under that kind of a microscope.

Clinton proved that most people don't care if you cheat on your wife.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally posted by Woofer
It looks like they screwed around with the paper ballots so that's not safe either, but it's correctable, but Kerry didn't have the balls to lawyer it.


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php


Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided—known as “spoilage” in election jargon—because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Palast’s investigation suggests that if Ohio’s discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots.

.
.
.


He's basing it on exit polls. We know how accurate those are. And even if you count thouse 247,672 votes, Kerry will not over come a 155,00 deficit.

[subtomic]

Originally posted by Supermac34
Clinton proved that most people don't care if you cheat on your wife.

Clinton had already been elected. The guy who was supposed to be Speaker of the House, on the other hand, was run out of office. And that Ryan dude in Illinois had to resign because he tried swinging.

Most people don't care, but most Republicans do.

[4chuckie]

Originally posted by Woofer
It looks like they screwed around with the paper ballots so that's not safe either, but it's correctable, but Kerry didn't have the balls to lawyer it.

Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided—known as “spoilage” in election jargon—because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Palast’s investigation suggests that if Ohio’s discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots.


So it was 247,672 ballots filled out incorrectly and 192,000 of those were liberals and only 55,000 were conservative. Wow seems tough since alot of the provosional ballots were provisionals from the military. Somehow you're assuming kerry can make up 136,483 votes out of 247,672. Sounds like the same math Kerry was using to finance all of his "plans"

Maybe before 2008 the democrat party should teach their elitists how to vote correctly. Us poor, dumb Ohio hicks can figure it out, why can't all the smart kids?