REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

How You Could Have Had My Vote

POSTED BY: JASONZZZ
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 17:26
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3711
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, November 7, 2004 10:07 AM

JASONZZZ


An open letter from a cogent moderate...

http://fromasadamerican.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-you-could-have-had-my
-vote.html


Quote:



How You Could Have Had My Vote

It's been two days since John Kerry conceded, and all I am seeing, hearing and reading from the Democratic party is that you guys think you lost on "moral values." You seem to think this means nothing more than opposition to gay marriage. You seem to think that Bush voters waited in line for hours to stick it to the queers, to tell those faggots how much we hate them!

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many Bush voters, like myself, were not happy to be voting for the President's re-election. Many Bush voters agonized over our decision and cast our vote in fear, trepidation, and trembling. Many of us would have given our left arms for a Democrat we could have supported.

Because I am too young to be as disillusioned as I am, and because I know that one-party rule is not good for my country, and because it is my deepest wish to see the Democratic party change into one I can give my whole-hearted support, I am going to explain why you didn't get my vote, and how you can get it in the future.

First, for context, let me give you a bit about my perspective: I am a single, heterosexual, college-educated woman in my late 20's with an annual income of about $30,000. I live in a solidly red state in the South, the region you guys wrote off entirely without even trying to persuade us to vote for you. I am not an ideologue, and I experience painful ambivalence about many political issues. The notion of an abortion makes me queasy, but I don't want Roe vs. Wade overturned. I have friends who've been impregnated by rape and friends who found out late in their third trimesters that they were carrying babies too malformed to ever have normal lives. The pictures of Iraqi children who've lost arms from the bombs my tax dollars bought make me shed tears, but I recognize that the war was the right thing to do, given the information we had available at the time the decision was made. I had no health insurance for three years, but I'm still, hesitantly, not in favor of socialized medicine. I know people who abuse the social services, but I also have friends who would be dead without the food stamps and SSI checks they collect each month. I believe in God and consider myself a Christian, but I don't go to church, and Falwell, Robertson, and their ilk scare me more than they scare you. I believe that in a perfect world, Roy Moore would have to live with the stench of his own ego, just like the rest of us do.

I have gay friends who are closeted and gay friends who couldn't be more open if they had QUEER tattooed across their foreheads, and I think they should be allowed to get married if they want to. I read The Onion, Dilbert, Dan Savage's sex advice, Salon.com, and quite a few blogs. The local librarians know me on sight. I waited in line until midnight when the fifth Harry Potter book came out. I can't wait to see the new Chucky movie. I will probably shack up before I get married, but I won't be proud of it. I wouldn't buy an SUV, even if I could pay cash for one. I recycle. I shop at Wal-mart, but I feel guilty about it, and if they unionized, I would never cross the picket line. I think FOX News is about as fair and balanced as a seesaw with a gorilla on one end.

President Bush's close relationships to people like John Ashcroft scare me. I hate the PATRIOT Act and am fearful of what might be part of PATRIOT II. The two dumbest trial balloons I've heard floated for his second-term agenda are privatizing Social Security and abolishing the income tax. When he says that God chose him to be President during this time of trial, I am embarrassed. I roll my eyes.

I am a pragmatic, disillusioned, realistic, and entirely ordinary member of the radical middle.

Here is why you didn't get my vote:

1. You didn't give me clear positions on the issues. I followed the news closely all through the campaign, but I still don't understand Kerry's position on Iraq. I know he voted for the IWR, but then he voted against the $87 billion. To you, that seemed to be a symbolic stand against Saddam Hussein (the IWR) but also a principled stand against a President who was out of control (against the $87 billion). To me, that was just confusing. He said he would have done everything different, but he also said that, knowing what he knew today (the day he was asked) he still would have cast the same vote. He said that he would bring allies to our side to share the burden, but he also said he would be sending 40,000 more of our troops. He said that we must finish the job, but he also said it was the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time. Huh?

2. You didn't convince me that you would defend America against the threats of terrorism. Kerry seemed to think that terrorism is like any other crime. You catch the people responsible and put them in jail, and that's that. After seeing the destruction – physical, financial, psychological, and emotional -- wrought by the September 11th attacks, I do not understand how he could believe this. The hijackers lived among us, ate at our restaurants, shopped in our malls, and wounded us worse than we have ever been wounded before. How Kerry saw this as a crime, and not as a paradigm-shifting event that deserved a military response, both in direct retaliation and to keep it from ever happening again by going on the offensive, is something I don't understand.

3. You insulted my intelligence by the constant mantra of Kerry's service in Vietnam. Most of the men I know who are older than 50 served in some way, either in country or in the Coast Guard or other non-combat roles. I don't see the relevance, and the drumbeat of "three purple hearts" struck me as manipulation. It was as if you were saying, "These dumbshit hawks want war? We'll give 'em a real war hero! That'll get their votes!"

4. Your constant references to the opinions of the rest of the world scared me, and I'm not talking about the "global test" comment. I don't care what Europeans think about me or my country. I learned in high school that living my life with one eye on the opinions of everyone else leads only to unnecessary turmoil and pointless pain. Why didn't you?

5. You disturbed me with your demonization of the rich. Rich people were talked about in this campaign as though they were all evil cheaters who had wage slaves tied up in the basement to be flogged for minimum wage, and what they didn't earn from the wage slaves' labor, they stole from nursing home residents. I am not rich, but I work hard, am learning about investing money, am continuing to improve my prospects for earning more money in the future, and fully expect to end up at least well-off someday. If I do, it will be because of my efforts and work, not because of winning "life's lottery." I know two millionaires personally. Both are entrepreneurs who took big risks and worked their backsides off for years to get where they are. Given that Kerry is married to a billionaire, this seemed especially hypocritical.

6. Here is something you could work on right about now: I could not stomach to listen to your incessant hatred of President Bush. Bush is stupid, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is a Nazi, Bush masturbates to photos of dead Iraqi babies, I'd vote for my dog before I'd vote for Bush, I'd vote for Castro before I'd vote for Bush, the Rethuglicans are fascists, Bush voters are treasonous, Bush should be impeached, blah blah blah blah blah blah. It was old three months after Bush's inauguration, and it's now just tiresome. I don't hate my President, even though I voted for him with more reluctance than I can express and a queasy feeling in my stomach. Language like this makes you seem immature, needlessly vulgar, and obnoxious.

7. Lastly, and I hope this doesn't hurt anyone feelings, because my objective is to make you think, not emote: I don't think you really want my vote. I actively sought out your perspective. I tuned in regularly, for months, to your biggest media project, your serious effort to get your message out: Air America Radio. I listened all day on Good Friday as host after host mocked people like me for believing in Jesus's life, death, and resurrection. I listened as Janeane Garofalo, who was one of my favorite comedians for years, expressed hatred and disgust for Bush voters so vile that I ended my live stream feeling assaulted, as if I'd been vomited on. I listened the night that Mike Malloy told a young Republican to hang up the phone and go open a vein. I listened to pure, unadulterated venom that was so intense I sometimes cut the stream and cried. Tonight, your spokespeople on AAR have been calling people like me "snake-handling evangelicals," and that was about the kindest thing I heard. Um…y'all? I've lived in the South my entire life and have never met a single snake-handler. Your attitudes, language, and behavior toward people like me: reasonable, thinking Christians who are quite moderate politically and who are just as well-informed as you are (yes, I've read all the PNAC essays, too, and yes, they scare me, too) is reminiscent of nothing so much as an abusive ex-lover, a crazy and drunken stalker. "I'll make you love me, or you'll regret it, you worthless bitch! Come here and let me beat you over the head and tell you how stupid and worthless you are! Then you'll see it my way!"


I tried so hard to give you guys a chance. I'm young, I'm not extremely religious, and I'm supportive of liberal ideals like fighting for higher wages, stopping outsourcing of jobs, and standing up for the little guy. I wanted to vote Democratic this time, more than I can possibly put into words. You just didn't give me the option.

President Bush won on values, yes, but not hatred of gays or any other stereotype you have in your head about Bush voters like me.

He won because he has values, clearly defined values, and even though I agree with little of what he believes, at least I know what he believes. At least I know that he really does believe in something. At least I know that he will do what he says he will do.

That's disgustingly little, but unbelievably – you offered me less.

So, if you want my vote next time, and the vote of all my close friends, and the millions more like us that you refuse to believe exists, it's pretty simple: take positions and don't waffle on them. Stand up for America, especially with regard to terrorism. Shut up about what Germany and France think. Stop pretending that the only way to become wealthy in America is to cheat, for the sake of those of us who still want to get there. Treat the President with at least as much civility, if not respect, as you would've wanted right-wingers to give a President Kerry. Most importantly, please, please please, please, please, please stop abusing me. No more verbal and psychological and emotional savagery. Treat me like a voter whose vote you would actually appreciate getting, and you will get it.

Do you maybe, just maybe, see where I'm coming from?

I doubt it. But I had to try.


Sincerely,


A Very Sad American






Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 7, 2004 11:51 AM

DANFAN


Thanks for posting this (and the link to it). I too am a Christian, Southern moderate. I voted Kerry (just barely) for a number of reasons that aren't germaine to this post. But this young woman's post struck a huge chord with me. I hope to see a change next time around.

In the meantime, life awaits. Adios.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 7, 2004 2:31 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


While I am a Canadian, and had no vote :

I thought John McCain would have been a much better choice for the republican nomination.

Just seems more sincere to me

From the way it sounds, many voted for Bush because they didn't want Kerry, and many voted for Kerry out of a dislike for Bush...

It's too bad there wasn't a " Now that guy makes sense " alternative.

Sad really

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 7, 2004 2:39 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Wow a college student in the south making $30,000 a year. I guess it's possible, but I gather she's not a full time student. Actually, makes me believe it's not really a college student, which makes me think this whole letter is just a fraud. Any way here's my diatribe (if that's an actual word)

Kerry clarified his position when he voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. It was a very eloquent speech. He stated that the President needed this power at this time, while encouraging the President to do all he could to find a dimplomatic solution. His point is agains the Iraq war is two fold 1) Bush didn't do all he could to avoid the war. 2) The president should have concentrated on Afghanistan and Osma Bin Laden instead.

Are we better off for the because of the war? I don't really know, it seems complicated when I think it over. First of all, there is very little or no correlation with Saddam Hussein and terrorist activity. The fact is Hussein ran a largely secular state that was repressing the element we are now combating. One explanation I've been given is that that the war in Iraq was meant to draw terrorist operatives to one place so we could destroy them. This may seem plausible, however by creating a guerilla war you create a situation that is very difficult to win. The reason we went is was to prevent a rogue nation from maintaining an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. We'll we're there and no WMD's have been found. Our administration just moves on.... "Well the world is better off for having Saddam Hussein out of power." This is a diversionary tactic should make you angry, it's obvious our country was mislead. We went through the same crap with Reagan and some how Oliver North comes out as a hero for violating drug laws and trying to sell arms to Iran.

The comment regarding Kerry's Purple Heart's is lame. I never heard a "drum beat" or mantra regarding the Purple Hearts, the Silver Star,or the Bronze Star. The Swift Boat Vet's for "Truth" were the one's making an issue of Kerry's war record.

The comment regarding Global test is double talk. I'm not talking about what Eurpoeans think, but I aslo don't care what they think. Gibberish. Incidnetly the word Global in the context Kerry said it means Comprehensive. It means that we really think an policy through before proceeding. Will we create a quagmire, will we actually eliminate terrorists or create additional ones, is this attack really going to serve our best interests, etc.? Not that we ask the UN for it's aboslute approval before executing our foreign policy.

Everyone admits that the attack on the twin towers was a crime, what kind of BS comment is that. A really love how Cheney just outright said if Kerry gets elected we will be attacked. How can he make such a statement and not get roasted for it. What's he saying there, He'll make a phone call and ensure it? That the terrorists are afraid of Bush? The terrorists are committed to blowing themselves up in the name of God, what makes you think they're afraid of the current adminstration. If I had to be in a fox hole with Bush or Kerry I'd pick Kerry, at least he's been in a few firefights.

When did Kerry demonize the rich? I missed that one. All he said was he felt they could afford to pay more of the tax burden.

I don't beleive Kerry ever called Bush stupid. And even if you mean the campaign or Kerry's supporters, why don't you apply the same standard to Bush's cronies. Bush actually said that Kerry, who has sat on the Senate Foreign Relation's commitee for about 20 yrs, didn't understand terrorism. How can that be? We've had international terrorism the entire time Kerry's been a senator. As far as the venom goes, it's two sided. I've listened for years as Republican broadcasters defamed Clinton as an incompetent, a liar and a murderer. You're not really giving the otherside a chance, otherwise you'd have noted the people you cited are propgandists and that their statements should be taken with a grain of salt.

"I am a pragmatic, disillusioned, realistic, and entirely ordinary member of the radical middle...
I tried so hard to give you guys a chance. I'm young, I'm not extremely religious, and I'm supportive of liberal ideals like fighting for higher wages, stopping outsourcing of jobs, and standing up for the little guy. I wanted to vote Democratic this time, more than I can possibly put into words. You just didn't give me the option....

He (Bush) won because he has values, clearly defined values, and even though I agree with little of what he believes, at least I know what he believes. At least I know that he really does believe in something. At least I know that he will do what he says he will do. "

What the heck does all this mean? I don't agree with a canditate's values but since he's defined his values, I'll vote for him? Well shoot David Duke had clearly defined values, should we have made him President? (Please don't answer)

I believe this letter is a fraud. I doubt that the person who wrote it ever intended to vote for anyone but President Bush. Just more internet propoganda.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 7, 2004 2:39 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Ooops double post. I've said my peace, no need to repeat it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 7, 2004 3:37 PM

KIRIKOLI


I love when people say they don't care what Europeans or the French or foreigners think. Because as we all know, people from outside the United States don't have valid opinions and if a foreigner walked up to you on the street, he would spout more bullshit at you than an American because he was born in a different part of the world, where man-made borders have clearly defined intelligence and new ideas.

But all sarcasm aside, the person who wrote this is a hypocrite. She calls on us to fight terrorism and then in the same breath says we shouldn't care what the world thinks and then says that Kerry didn't understand terrorism.

See, the thing about that is that terrorism CANNOT be defeated. The war on terror is no such thing...for the simple reason that you cannot violently destroy irrational hate. If you violently destroy one hater, you create another. There will ALWAYS be terrorists. And once you understand that, you know why we NEED the rest of the world...not even counting the argument that the rest of the world is, in fact, occupied by other human beings.

The only way to fight terrorism is to minimize it. In the simplest terms, there will always be one terrorist. If you kill him (or her), another will take his place and no matter how hard you try, you will never convince this one terrorist to give up his irrational hatred.

However, there is hope because this one terrorist cannot do everything by himself. He needs supporters. It is those supporters who can be attacked...not by hunting them down, but by appealing to their more moderate values. Not every terrorist is as extreme as the one; not all of them completely lack the ability to reason. In fact, I would say that a majority were once people just like you and me.

By segregating the world, you encourage hatred. By saying 'Forget France, forget Germany' you effectively say 'We don't see you as people we need to consider when we take action' as clearly as any racist could say to someone different than himself. This breeds hatred and gives that one terrorist the support he needs.

Frankly, in my opinion, if you can't see everyone as part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 7, 2004 4:59 PM

HERO


I want to begin by saying that I understand this woman's post. She is expressing opinions I've heard from people like my sister, another college educated woman living in the south. Like my sister she is a Democrat who could not and would not vote for Kerry. Why? Because the national Democratic party does not represent her or her interests. It also makes a mockery of her values.

I heard an interesting line today from 'Smokey and the Bandit' (1977). The gist was that a person's intellegence can be measured by what part of the country they live in. Send a southern Democrat to the Northeast and they are backwards and ignorent. Send a Yankee liberal to West Virginia and they are elitist and out of touch. So when Zell Miller asks "What has happened to the Democratic Party of my youth?" The answer is they stopped listening to their better half.

Now for the rest of the story:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kirikoli:
By segregating the world, you encourage hatred. By saying 'Forget France, forget Germany' you effectively say 'We don't see you as people we need to consider when we take action'



You are correct. But by making France and Germany into "the world" you say the same thing to those nations who have chosen to join us and have paid the price in blood and dollars. Britain, Poland, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Japan, Iraq, Afganistan, Kuwait, Turkey, an assortment of "stans" from the former Soviet Union, and so on and so forth and look dead Australians who are neither French nor German, so are not a part of the liberal world.

So I say forget France and forget Germany because the US doesn't need to see you as people we need to consider when we take action.

Oh, I see the French are fighting a "wrong war" of their own in the Ivory Coast. I'm sure that if they find the Ivorians (real term, I looked it up) too much to handle, all they have to do is ask for some help...after all thats what "allies" are for.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 8, 2004 2:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Veteran:
Wow a college student in the south making $30,000 a year. I guess it's possible, but I gather she's not a full time student. Actually, makes me believe it's not really a college student, which makes me think this whole letter is just a fraud.



Umm. Says college-educated, not college student. Darn! An entire diatribe wasted due to lack of reading comprehension.

But statements like:
"The comment regarding Kerry's Purple Heart's is lame." or, "The comment regarding Global test is double talk.", "Everyone admits that the attack on the twin towers was a crime, what kind of BS comment is that.", "I really love how Cheney just outright said if Kerry gets elected we will be attacked."
do sort of support this sentence.

Quote:

Your attitudes, language, and behavior toward people like me...is reminiscent of nothing so much as an abusive ex-lover, a crazy and drunken stalker. "I'll make you love me, or you'll regret it, you worthless bitch! Come here and let me beat you over the head and tell you how stupid and worthless you are! Then you'll see it my way!"



The letter makes good points. I didn't even vote for Bush, but I was so turned off by the ceaseless hatred coming from the Democratic side that I couldn't vote Kerry either. It may not have been from his campaign, but the Dems I saw here and on other boards were so hateful and smugly eliteist that I couldn't stand it. You guys gotta learn that calling people stupid isn't the way to get them to support your candidate.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 8, 2004 4:58 AM

BARNSTORMER


This young college educated lady from the south did a very good job of summing up my feelings, and the reason I voted for Bush.

I stated in another thread that I don't even really like Bush, but I voted for him anyway just for the reasons she stated.

And why oh why can't we ever get a presidential ticket we can feel good about voting for instead of the far left/far right self professed moderates.

If there was a Lieberman/McCain or McCain/Lieberman ticket I'd happily vote for it with a smile of satisfaction on my face.




Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 8, 2004 6:07 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

Oh, I see the French are fighting a "wrong war" of their own in the Ivory Coast. I'm sure that if they find the Ivorians (real term, I looked it up) too much to handle, all they have to do is ask for some help...after all thats what "allies" are for.

H



I usually don't reply to myself, since I am almost always right. But in this case I feel I can no longer agree with myself.

France is using its vastly supieror military to enforce its will on a tiny former colony. This is like a rapist being called to mediate a domestic dispute involving his victim. It aint right.

Now Ivorians weilding machettes are facing down French tanks. Naturally the French soldiers first instinct is to surrender, but here they are facing those machettes with the courage that a vastly superior manpower, training, and equipment gives them.

First we should support France's desire for sanctions against the Ivory Coast. Then maybe we should consider some sort of aid to the Ivorians. We could set up a "Cocoa for Food" program adminstered by the UN, I'm sure they'd be willing. Then, instead of food, we could substiute American made weapons. Finally, when France wants to send more troops and tries to get aid from other African and Euorpean allies we could say "no" and make every effort to keep other nations from joining the French war of Aggression against its former (and maybe future) colony.

Then its election time in France. We could encourage French radical filmakers to make movies about the French President's complicity in causing the collapse of the Cocoa market (thus causing the economic crisis)...we could call it "Cocoa Butter 9/11". We could call the French "colonialists" and "Imperialists" and "Hitler" and say they say waging war against Black Africa. Sure, they claim an immediate threat, but we all know they wont find the "Cocoa Beans of Mass Destruction". Then we could all suffer as the price of cocoa soars and a Hershey Bar costs $2. Then the whole world could hate the French for being "West Africa's Policeman".

Go Ivory Coast. This Browncoats pulling for you.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 8, 2004 6:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
We could set up a "Cocoa for Food" program adminstered by the UN, I'm sure they'd be willing.

Go Ivory Coast. This Browncoats pulling for you.
H



"It's All About The Cocoa!!!"
I hear that Chirac is planning to give a no-bid contract for rebuilding the cocoa industry to a consortium of French chocolate makers, Halles d'Burton.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 8, 2004 9:02 AM

PIRATEJENNY


This person has it wrong

Despite what the main stream media is reporting, most Democrates and Liberals/ Progressives aren't buying what they are selling.

Morals / Values

good gawd its a load of crap... something the right wingers trumped up

the morjority of us know that morals values have nothing to do with why Bush is still in office

how do we know..

because we have eyes to see..and the Bush Administration has run a morally bankrupt campaign and him and his admistration are morally bankrupt

there is nothing moral about the bills and laws they have supported. actually it shows just how unmoral and how valueless they are

for all their preaching... they have nothing to show for it

they do a lot of talking but they haven't backed up any of their preaching

and as for the so called morals and values people who voted for him..well..most of them are bigots who use their so called religion and preaching as a sheild..how do we know they are bigots..

once again because we have eyes to see..they support an administratin lacking in values and morals

the real morals and values people are us Dem/Libs/ Progressives

because we are the ones who even though we might disagree..or not like something we understand whats at stake.. we might not like the idea of gay marriage..but we know that they are human beings and we aren't going to try to make them 2nd and 3rd class citizens, we know and understand that Church and State should be seperate...

we understand that everyone deserves the opportunity to succeed..we understand that people need health care ..and clean water and clean air? and we support it, we can see when our constitution is being corrupted and we're angry about it.. we understand that people have the right to make deceisions about their own body..we may not like or agree with abortion.. but we support someone elses right to that choice

you see we not only talk the talk but we walk the walk.

unlike these so called moral values people


so lets get that one striaght ..we aren't that stupid..morals and values haven't got a damn thing to do with why Bush is still in office if it did he wouldn't be there

Although I do agree with this person that Democrates and when I say Democrates I mean the Kerry crew didn't make his positions clear

he made some gross errors ones that I would often shake my head at and ask how can they be that dense..its the same mistake that Gore made back in 2000 even though he did win ( I believe Kerry did to but it can't be proven as of yet)..but I digress

Kerry bought into the Republicans game..

much in the same way that this moral values thing is being hawked!!

everytime the Bush Administration would throw something out there..the Democrates would crew on it..

what they should have done was let the B-A chew on their own garabage and concentrated on the issues instead of taking the bait every freak'n time

and Kerry was too nice..Democates can't be nice when your running against corrupt shady mean spirted administion like the Bush administration

Thats one of the reasons why I love Howard Dean so much, he was a badass.. he knew exactly what he wanted to do and he wore his Liberalism like a badge of honor(he said all the things that needed saying)

while I would never want the Democaratic party to stoop as low as the Republican party where the ends justify the means at any cost..because that would be a party I couldn't support..


I do think we have to be tougher because we are dealing with something very nasty

while this person makes a few points

Kerry who wasn't my 1rst choice by any means, for one I felt that he was to conservative...was a better choice then Bush..at this point just about anything is a better choice then the current administration

and I don't say that with malice..I say it with fear..the Bush administation scares me!!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 8, 2004 9:39 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
This person has it wrong



That may be. I saw several good points in the letter. But if you're correct, how do you convince this kind of person, who might have voted Kerry? By insults like this?

Quote:


and as for the so called morals and values people who voted for him..well..most of them are bigots who use their so called religion and preaching as a sheild..how do we know they are bigots..

once again because we have eyes to see..they support an administratin lacking in values and morals

the real morals and values people are us Dem/Libs/ Progressives



Yeah. "I hate your guts, you bigot! Now vote for my candidate, fool!" Works every time.

Quit talking politics and see the message here. If you insult people instead of educating them on your views, you may feel morally superior, but you'll continue to lose at the polls.

I probably agree with the liberal side of most issues, but since posting a while back that I wasn't convinced Bush "Lied" about WMD (not that there are any, just that he might have been fooled like everyone else), I haven't been able to discuss anything without being branded a neo-con, or a paid propagandist for the right. Nobody much cares how I feel about taxes, or same-sex marriage, or anything else. I didn't follow the orthodoxy 100%, and so was branded a heretic. This bothered me so much I went Libertarian, rather than vote for a party that contained such fanatics.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 8, 2004 10:09 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE


I think Kerry and Bush both gave some clear and some convoluted answers during the debates.

Unfortunately, for Kerry, He gave clear responses when he should have been vague and vice versa. Bush did the exact opposite and so won the vote.
Kerry wasn't concise and clear when it came to religious viewpoints, but he was very clear on other things. Bush was very concise and clear on the religion topic, but not on others.

That played to Bush's advantage because that is the most important thing to voters in the US, as shown by the results of the election polls.

Also, when Kerry had the chance to explain his stance on the abortion issue, he was vague again. He had to explain and explain his point of view because it was more complicated than Bush's. All Bush had to say in response to Kerry on that issue was, "he voted against the anti-abortion bill."

Nevermind the reason.... most people stopped listening to Kerry after his third sentence on that point. I didn't, but I think it's clear most people did.

For those who don't know, Kerry didn't support the anti-abortion bill because it had no provision for the mother of the baby. If the mother was going to die as a result of keeping her baby, she had no other option but to die, under the republican anti-abortion bill. The democrats wanted to vote for it, but they wanted it to say, allow for certain life-threatening situations to the mother to be taken into account.

The republicans said, no. Democrats called the republicans out for making a catch 22 situation... saying that repub's created a faulty bill just so that the dem's couldn't vote for it... thus making it a fabricated political issue that repub's could use against dem's in the upcoming election.... which they did. Very successfully I might add. Very dishonest tactics to fool the american public.

People forgot that the Dem's told them what the repub's were planning to do, election time rolled around, and all anyone heard on the news about abortion was that Kerry supports it. What a load.

-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 8, 2004 12:27 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
This person has it wrong



That may be. I saw several good points in the letter. But if you're correct, how do you convince this kind of person, who might have voted Kerry? By insults like this?

Quote:


and as for the so called morals and values people who voted for him..well..most of them are bigots who use their so called religion and preaching as a sheild..how do we know they are bigots..

once again because we have eyes to see..they support an administratin lacking in values and morals

the real morals and values people are us Dem/Libs/ Progressives



Yeah. "I hate your guts, you bigot! Now vote for my candidate, fool!" Works every time.

Quit talking politics and see the message here. If you insult people instead of educating them on your views, you may feel morally superior, but you'll continue to lose at the polls.

I probably agree with the liberal side of most issues, but since posting a while back that I wasn't convinced Bush "Lied" about WMD (not that there are any, just that he might have been fooled like everyone else), I haven't been able to discuss anything without being branded a neo-con, or a paid propagandist for the right. Nobody much cares how I feel about taxes, or same-sex marriage, or anything else. I didn't follow the orthodoxy 100%, and so was branded a heretic. This bothered me so much I went Libertarian, rather than vote for a party that contained such fanatics.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, as far as I'm concerned its their lost

oh good gawd who said anything about hating..

I don't hate...

I call it like I see it...

This administration has been against
clean water , clean air, the enivoriment as a whole..just look at some of the bills they have supported , they are against gay marriage which equals human rights, they are against abortion, they are against people of color having the right to vote, they haven't supported any bills that would provide hard working people in this country any healthcare..the republican party is the party of hate and disenfranchisement, actually this administration is against the poor and middle classes

the bigots aren't bigots because I say they are.
they are because they are

These people don't practice what they preach!!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 8, 2004 2:02 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, as far as I'm concerned its their lost




But it's your loss. You lost the election because you couldn't convince enough folks to vote for Kerry. Now you have to deal with Bush for another four years. If you alienate the middle-of-the-roaders by your stridency, instead of calmly trying to sell them on your point of view, you'll lose again in 2008.

There are a lot of folks out there like the letter writer. You (the Democrats/liberals/progressives) need to turn them from the "dark side", not insult them until they won't listen no matter what you say. You can learn from your mistakes or you can repeat them. The choice is up to you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 8, 2004 4:51 PM

LEXIBLOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

I didn't even vote for Bush, but I was so turned off by the ceaseless hatred coming from the Democratic side that I couldn't vote Kerry either. It may not have been from his campaign, but the Dems I saw here and on other boards were so hateful and smugly eliteist that I couldn't stand it. You guys gotta learn that calling people stupid isn't the way to get them to support your candidate.




The attitude was borne out of fear; he kept lying and nobody cared. He kept increasing world tension and nobody cared. His actions create new terrorists and nobody cared.

In the end those who paid attention felt they had to scream. What a pity they forgot... nobody cares.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 8, 2004 5:59 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


LexiBlock,

I was feeling a little foolish about my earlier post. But now, not so much. Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 7:24 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by LexiBlock:

The attitude was borne out of fear; he kept lying and nobody cared. He kept increasing world tension and nobody cared. His actions create new terrorists and nobody cared.

In the end those who paid attention felt they had to scream. What a pity they forgot... nobody cares.



I think that those who felt they had to scream have assumed they were the only ones paying attention.

This was the most considered and thoughtful electorate in years. Ratings and political attendence where through the roof.

Result, the first electorate majority in 16 years.

The Democrats throughout the Red states revolted and black support for the President doubled. Seems to me you can blame the voters or you can blame a failed message and an out of touch party. Just remember, blaming the voters is an easy way to lose the next election.

Its almost like the liberal approach to TV. Liberals support public television despite the fact the ratings do not justify such support. People are just to stupid to watch...

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 7:46 AM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, as far as I'm concerned its their lost






But it's your loss. You lost the election because you couldn't convince enough folks to vote for Kerry. Now you have to deal with Bush for another four years. If you alienate the middle-of-the-roaders by your stridency, instead of calmly trying to sell them on your point of view, you'll lose again in 2008.






There are a lot of folks out there like the letter writer. You (the Democrats/liberals/progressives) need to turn them from the "dark side", not insult them until they won't listen no matter what you say. You can learn from your mistakes or you can repeat them. The choice is up to you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



No the days of trying to talk to Rep's / Conservatives and reason with them are over its sink or swim !!


Now you are the one that has it Wrong!!

Its OUR loss

We may have lost the election but you guys loss too so its our loss, maybe you can't see it now at this moment but you will see in time, probably alot sooner then later

Yes just like Mal said it maybe the losing side but I'm not covinced it was the wrong side

We know its your loss just as much as it is ours, Despite the fact that alot of people voted against their own intrest( despite the fact that the election was stolen ( I believe it was and that it will come out eventually)..those same people need all the same things we do

so its our lost and if you ask most Democrates out there most progressive people they'll tell you that we're all loosers in this game!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 9:19 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
No the days of trying to talk to Rep's / Conservatives and reason with them are over its sink or swim !!



So you choose to repeat your mistakes again next time...and everybody loses again?

I'm really not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to point out a few things I noticed, as a reasonably uninvolved observer, that might be improved in the Democrats political discourse during the last election cycle, especially in the cyberworld of chat rooms and bulletin boards.

1. It's not a debate, it's a sale. You aren't after points, you want to change the other person's mind, to get them to start considering your point of view. Argument does not work for this. it just increases resistance.

2. Find common ground. If someone agrees with you on nine points and disagrees on the tenth, talk about the points of commonality. maybe if they see you're reasonable they'll consider the final point, or at least decide that the common points are enough to deserve their vote. Don't spend all your time hammering on that one point until they run away.

3. Don't insult religion. First, there are a lot of Liberal people of faith. Don't lump them in with the ultra-right wing folk. Second, find those Liberal people of faith and ask them how they reconcile their religions beliefs with their political/social beliefs. Use this in your "sales pitch" to the undecided.

4. Lose the "Bush is the center of all Evil in the Universe" attitude, at least in public. It is really off-putting to people who aren't as emotional as you about the issue. Talk instead about policies, remembering you're selling, not debating. If you want to have private "Hate Bush" sessions with the other true believers, go ahead.

5. Do something about Michael Moore. Sure, you love him, but he scares or turns off a lot of people who might otherwise be open to your views.

6. Get out of the gun control business. The cost/benefit for this is way lower than any other issue. You won't lose any Dem faithful, and you will pick up otherwise liberal folk who are real single-issue about keeping their guns.

Just some suggestions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 12:37 PM

PIRATEJENNY


No its too late for that Dem/Progressives have talked to Reps until they were blue in the face all to be called paranoid or crazy..


its too late..so now we're all going to have to swallow a bitter pill and hope that it doesn't kill us

I have a feeling that the rep/conservatives minds will change..but sometimes people have to learn the hard way..and unfortuantely for us all its going to be a hard lesson.

I have never insulted religion, I have respect for peoples beliefs..I don't care if someone believes that a rabbit and a turtle mated and and out of that came the earth..People have a right to their belifes

what I don't respect, is people who use religion as a tool much like this administration , or people who try to use religion to justify things they do, like disenfranchise people, or make them 2nd class citizens..I don't respect people who use religion as a sheild for their bigotry

I will not loose Bush is the center of evil..why should I his admistration is evil..so why should I loose that..

I go by what I see, and if the Bush administration does bad and evil things I'm not going to try and down play that to appeal to peoples senses Nope its not going to happen, I get what your saying but your under the impression that I'm trying to appeal to the consertives...those days are over..the time for reasoning and appealing is over.. now we are all going to have to deal with whats going to be unleashed on us

LOL

Micheal MOOre, I guess the truth is a scary thing, what would you have me do about Micheal Moore if he turns off alot of people they have a choice not to watch him..nobody is forcing anyone to view Mr. Moore.


Civilized societys don't need an arsenal of weapons, I understand that some people like to hunt..but maybe if this country worked on higher education..and put more value on human life and dignity maybe guns wouldn't be such an issue!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 5:04 PM

WILDBILL


Civilized societies do need weapons - they absolutely depend on them. Whether in the hands of the military, police, or individuals (myself for example) they keep the armed and uncivilized under control and civilization civilized.

I noticed that the good old sporting-use argument came up ("some people like to hunt"). This worked so poorly in the past that no gun control was mentioned at all this campaign - its a losing issue even watered down.

The whole "sporting use" thing was just putting words in the mouths of gun owners and then ridiculing it. For the record, none of my guns were designed for hunting, target shooting, or any other sorting purpose - they are all military and police firearms designed to shoot people. A bit uncomfortable to think about, but true.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 5:58 PM

PIRATEJENNY


I'm not talking about the miltary, I'm talking about your average citazen, take us for example, we have so much crime its ridiculous compared with alot of other countries..,

This is not the days of the wild west, or when people needed to hunt for food most of the time, ..so I don't think most people need to be carrying pistols and oozies

IMO!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 6:31 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE


I got a question.

Now that we American's have abandoned the ole separation of church and state... what is the next move to make the American people forget about that supposed separation?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
I got a question.

Now that we American's have abandoned the ole separation of church and state... what is the next move to make the American people forget about that supposed separation?



Interesting. How do you define "Separation of Church and State", and how do you consider that it has been abandoned?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 3:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
No its too late for that Dem/Progressives have talked to Reps until they were blue in the face all to be called paranoid or crazy..

its too late..so now we're all going to have to swallow a bitter pill and hope that it doesn't kill us.



Okay. You have almost four years to convince just 5% of the voters in a few swing states that they need to vote for the Democrat in the 2008 election, and you could win. But you'd rather bitch and moan and make excuses. "Oh, they're all fundamentalist bigots.", "Oh, Diebold fixed the election.", "Oh, everyone who doesn't agree with us is just evil.", and on and on.

If you can't get over your self-pity and do something constructive, you deserve what you get. Enjoy it.





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 5:10 PM

WILDBILL


Can someone help me out? I can't seem to find "Seperation of Church and State" in the First Amendment. Not even one of the three words "separation", "church", or "state".
It must be in there - all my unionized, public school teachers told me so.

Oh, and my deepest apologies go out to all the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses I was a little curt with in the past. Having Kerry supporters come by made me realize that you guys are alright. So a friendly smile, snacks, and coffee (decaf alternatives too) will greet you the next time you darken my door.

(They really did get blue in the face.)


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 6:55 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
No its too late for that Dem/Progressives have talked to Reps until they were blue in the face all to be called paranoid or crazy..

its too late..so now we're all going to have to swallow a bitter pill and hope that it doesn't kill us.



Okay. You have almost four years to convince just 5% of the voters in a few swing states that they need to vote for the Democrat in the 2008 election, and you could win. But you'd rather bitch and moan and make excuses. "Oh, they're all fundamentalist bigots.", "Oh, Diebold fixed the election.", "Oh, everyone who doesn't agree with us is just evil.", and on and on.

If you can't get over your self-pity and do something constructive, you deserve what you get. Enjoy it.





"Keep the Shiny side up"




Speaking out and speaking truth isn't bitching, and I never said that everyone who doesn't agree with us is evil..no that would be ingnorant

The only thing I'm interested in is the truth..you see I don't care what the truth is, I just want to know it...some people can't handle the truth

so what you see as bitching , I see as speaking out

I liken it to a jalapano pepper..some people may love them some people may hate them some people maybe indifferent to them...but no matter what you feel about them you can't get a way from the truth and that is they are hot!!

no matter what you feel about the Bush administration..their are certain truths about them..people can deny it..ignore it..or they can be honest about it ..I'm being honest about it

its just like the so called religious right people ..I don't care that they vote for Bush..

But be honest about..don't hide behind relgion and use it as a sheild for the bigotry..just admit that they are bigots and they support the Bush administration..NOw thats honest and its not insulting!!

As for doing something about it, How do you know I'm not.

and selfpity..hardly

We are all sailing aboard the titanic, the only diffrence is some us know it and some of us don't!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 12, 2004 4:19 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Can someone help me out? I can't seem to find "Seperation of Church and State" in the First Amendment. Not even one of the three words "separation", "church", or "state".
It must be in there - all my unionized, public school teachers told me so.



You need to look at the writings of the founding fathers- Jefferson, Madison, and so forth- where they write often and eloquently about the "wall of separation between the church and state". Jefferson refused to allow celebration of a religious holiday. It was very clear that the NEW government didn't want to follow the example of Henry VIII and the Church of England, or involve the nation in religious wars like Europe.

I've already posted a number of quotes and links on the topic, not going to re-look it up again. Just do a google search on "separation church state" amd it will pull up their writings.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 12, 2004 4:33 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer... What we do here IS debate. It's a wild and wooly discussion group as far as I can tell. Besides, could you REALLY be finagled, wheedled, or smooth-talked into voting for Kerry... or anyone else, for that matter? I don't think your intelligence would allow it, and I'm not even gonna try. I'll leave that to the professional politicians of the Democratic Party.

I'm not even sure that insulting people isn't a way to win votes. I occasionally watch FOX, listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest, and they spew (literally) hatred and insults. That didn't stop people from voting for Bush, did it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 12, 2004 5:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Stoking hate IS a way to win votes - find, or create, an enemy, and proclaim your side THE righteous side. Then watch 'em flock.
(Old thread - Demonization of the Enemy)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 12, 2004 6:08 PM

WILDBILL


Been there - read that. Congress wrote exactly what they meant clearly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

All laws written are a product of consensus - so what we have in the end is the average sentiment of the framers. Any opinions, even expressed by the framers themselves, aren't binding as they represent their personal view and not the will of Congress as a whole.

Freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion (meaning all things religious and every reference to religion).

If my praying disturbs you, I'll try to pray quietly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 12, 2004 6:43 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


As long as my preaching about the evils of religious dope doesn't bother you. Just kidding. Mostly. I'm personally non-committal about religion and whatever you do with your god(s) is OK with me. I just don't want it in my goverment.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 12, 2004 7:26 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


That was just my first pass of a reply from a busy day.

I find the letter disingenuous. What I'm hearing is, paraphrasing... "I wouldn't have voted for Bush but you MADE me do it". "I heard people like me being mocked for believing in Jesus." "Your spokespeople have been calling people like me 'snake-handling evangelicals,'" "Your attitudes, language, and behavior toward people like me: reasonable, thinking Christians..."

I don't hear her complaining about O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, The Federalist, Lott, and other hate-spewing right-wingers. The problem isn't bile and venom- it's perfectly fine when it's directed at people not like her- it's that she IDENTIFIES with snake-handling evangelicals. She identified with Bush-voters BEFORE she even voted: "I felt assaulted when Bush voters were mocked" ("I " = Bush voters. Can I make this any more plain?)

What I'm hearing is rationalization. She wants to think that she's a reasonable person, but when push came to shove she put her religion and hurt feelings ahead of reason and now she wants to unload the responsibility onto Democrats. I think she just need to gain maturity and take responsibility for her actions.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2004 3:08 AM

WILDBILL


Rue,
Preach all you like about whatever you like ("free expression thereof")and I'll know that things are working as they should. I don't want the goverment in the religion business any more now then in my agnostic days.

The "seperation of church and state" argument just rubs me the wrong way and shouldn't frame the debate (as it's not written in the law). For example:
If someone were to say that "In God we trust" on coins violates the seperation of church and state, I'd write them off as making a legally invalid argument. (If in a bad mood a might call them a brainwashed Marxist or somesuch.)
On the other hand, If someone were to say that "In God we trust" on coins is a defacto establishment of religion by Congress, I'd accept the validity of their argument (not sure if I'd agree or disagree).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You know Bill, you are the very first (and, I mean the very first) person to bring up the point that the Constitution is a compromise. Hardly anyone ever thinks of that. My hat's off to you! Not being a constitutional expert myself, it would be interesting to know why the phrase "separation of Church and State" never made it in, since some of the Founding Fathers felt passionately about this point. I wonder what the countervailing argument was, if any.

But just because an interpretation isn't in the constitution per se doesn't mean it's an invalid point. When laws and regulations need to be intepreted it's the norm to go into related documents to deduce the reasoning or intent of the writer(s), otherwise you run the risk of creating a new law. We do this all the time where I work. To belabor a point, even if - or perhaps especially if- one wishes to strictly intepret the Constitution it would be necessary to look at ALL the writings on a particular issue to understand the thrust of the Founding Fathers. (Thrust implies a directionality- where would the Founding Fathers tend, if faced with this situations?)

IMHO I don't think strict interpretation is possible since new situations inevitably arise. But I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2004 5:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


SignyM, Rue, and PJ.

If the Democrats had picked up less than one million votes in swing states in either if the last two elections, we'd have a Democrat in the White House or ready to move in. Why didn't this happen?

Now grant me please, for the sake of argument, that everyone in the country is not either an evil, warmongering, bigoted, moneygrubbing Republican, or a peaceloving, inclusive, socially-conscious Democrat. There are a number of folk out there who wander around somewhere between these extremes.

If 51% of the total population were the good Dems, you'd have won. If 51% are the bad Republicans, you'll always lose. So the only scenario worth considering is the one in which both good Dems and bad GOPers are in a minority, and the Wanderers in the middle will swing the election.

*************************************************
So how does one go about attracting the Wanderers and their votes? (This is the important question. If you have dissenting opinions, please apply them by providing alternate answers to this question. Remember, this is about getting the votes in the middle only, not preaching to the choir.
*************************************************

In my humble opinion the evil GOP did this more successfully by being (or appearing to be) more inclusive, i.e.
"Hi. We're the GOP. How do you feel about this list of items? Let us know if anything is really important to you. Lets see. Taxes. Foreign policy. Abortion. What? Oh, you're pro-life? That's fine. So are we. No, we don't care how you feel about taxes, or foreign policy, come on in. We have a seat for you right here."

The good Dems, on the other hand, want you to buy the whole package, like this.
"Hi. We're the Democrats. Please check the boxes on this issues questionnare. Done? Thanks. Let's see. Pro-choice. Tax the rich. Good on gender issues. Health-care. Good so far. Iraq war. What? You support the Iraq war? How can you support the Iraq war? Don't you know Bush lied about WMD? Get away from me, you stupid neo-con. Go sit with your evil buddies!"

Exaggerated? Sure. But you get the idea. This is how I saw the fight for the votes in the middle play out in the last two elections, especially the most recent one.

Does anyone have an alternate scenario, remembering that this is about the undecided Wanderers only, not the party faithful?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2004 7:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Now grant me please, for the sake of argument, that everyone in the country is not either an evil, warmongering, bigoted, moneygrubbing Republican, or a peaceloving, inclusive, socially-conscious Democrat. There are a number of folk out there who wander around somewhere between these extremes.


HAHAHAHA!!!!

Just FYI I'm not a party faithful. I actually didn't vote for Clinton last round and it had nothing to do with Monica.

This is a complicated issue and I don't have a ready answer. I'm not sure this was a victory for Republicans as much as it was a victory for the religious right. I think what we saw was an asymmetric war (contest)- the left was focusing on Iraq, while the right was focusing on religion. Some people have said that this is the end of the Democratic Party as we know it, but conversely I would say the same thing for the Republican Party. Many of the old Republican values- fiscal conservatism, lack of government interference in private lives, and so forth- were hardly given lip service duinrg the Republican convention.

If you will grant me for the sake of argument that the REAL dividing line is between the fundamentalist religious movement in the United States and "other" (not between Democrats and Republicans or between pro- and anti-war) then I would look at what made that movement so successful.

I read a study once that looked at what made a successful movement. They looked at various movements: civil rights, environmental, women's movement, the then-unsuccessful animal rights movement, and so forth. One of the conistent characteristics of a successful movement is the presence of radical AND moderate elements. The radical elements "legitimize" the more conciliatory wing. If you look at far-right conservatives, they obviously fill that "radical" function, while the Republican Party (until this last election) filled the "conciliatory" function.

For the past several Democratic presidencies, up until this election cycle when Dr. Dean uncorked popular anger, there was no corresponding radical left of center. I think what happened was that Bush supporters were basically made to feel uncomfortable about making the choice they would have made anyway, being unused the ANY criticism from the left.

In other words, I'm not sure it is wrong for the left to engage in attack politics. It may have cost this election, but it may be useful in forming a left-of-center identity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:24 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Yes, it does seem that a combination of extremists and moderates works to create a functional movement.

Just to throw some gas on the fire, here's two maps of red states v blue states, and slave states and territories v free.

http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_state
s_vs_.html


But now I gotta run.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 14, 2004 6:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Anything I might say on the topic would be wildly inflammatory (so to speak). I'll let someone else light the match!!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 15, 2004 2:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


And I'm not even trying to be inflamatory at all. I'm just curious to know if you have any ideas for winning the 2008 election other than hoping things get so bad that many of the people who voted for Bush will turn on him and vote Democrat. That seems to be the only strategy I've seen so far from the liberal/progressive side here.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 15, 2004 4:11 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
And I'm not even trying to be inflamatory at all. I'm just curious to know if you have any ideas for winning the 2008 election other than hoping things get so bad that many of the people who voted for Bush will turn on him and vote Democrat. That seems to be the only strategy I've seen so far from the liberal/progressive side here.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



I'm pretty disappointed with the so-called left as well. So-called because a "left" is supposed to present an alternative to a "right" and looking back, they really didn't present a positive alternative, the Kerry campaign was fundamentally "negative" in that the main thrust of the message, the underlying theme was "Look, Bush is bad and I'm not Bush." Except when it came to terrorism where the theme was "I'm just as much of a badass as Bush." Now, I'm not talking about Kerry's "plan" which had some ideas lurking about, but the campaign. The whole campaign, seems to me, was Bush-centered and Bush-defined.

This started with 9/11 and the "war on terror" hype. As long as America continues shaking in her boots over "the terrorists" and this "post-9/11 world," the next president will be a republican. A fear dominated nation will always, always elect right-wing candidates. Americans were so paralyzed by fear after 9/11 that it looked like liberalism was dead. The idea of giving to others because we have so much was impossible for people in deep grief over the losses of 9/11 to get their heads around, and the Bush campaign milked that grief for all it was worth.

Seems to me, the only way for a democrat to launch a successful, positive campaign in 2008, a campaign that isn't just a rehash of "Can't you see how effed up Bush is?" is to reframe 9/11 as the biggest security glitch in history instead of this "world-altering" event. We all read about the memos and briefs that got lost on the desks of this administration. That's where the problem lies. There have always been forces out there that "hate America," that's nothing new, what's new is that we let them get all the way to the WTC in stollen aircraft without even scrambling a few jets to intercept them. The hijackers used freaking box cutters! 6 months of martial arts training will give you what you need to handle freaking box cutters! America has been lazy, asleep at the wheel. We've believed that our vast military superiority across the globe made us invincible. But as we are relearning in Iraq, not all global problems can be solved with superior fire-power.

That's all I have time for now, gotta go to work. Have a good day everybody! Keep flying!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 15, 2004 6:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think more than reframing 9-11 is needed. The OTHER requirement for a successful movement is a coherent and straighforward mission. The left, such as it is, tries to cover dozens of single-focus movements: gender and "racial" equality, environmental protection, pacifism, etc. There IS a unified motivation, but it seems hard to wrap up and is easily protrayed as "pandering" to "special interests" (even if those "special interests represent 99% of the population)

I think the left needs a powerful theme. But the left has a special problem, it tends to encourage ppl asking questions and taking individual stances which makes decision-making and internal discipline difficult. (Have you ever attended an "organizing" meeting? It's like riding a herd of cats. ) This is unlike the religious right, which has an authoritarian basis ("God said so") and can more successfully apply internal discipline.

Given that inherent problem, a 48% vote for Kerry wasn't a defeat, it was an indication that almost half of the voters had their heads screwed on tight enough to see reality despite the right-wing/ big business control of the major media and the fear pumped at Americans day and night by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld fear-factory
That is really quite an individual and organizational accomplishment!

While the left and the Democratic Party need to make some strategic decisions, I find much to be encouraged about in this last vote.

PS- I'm keeping my "Nothing Accomplished" bumper sticker on my car for the forseebale future.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 5:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I hope the Democrats are smart enough to take advantage of a position where THEY CAN'T LOSE.

If they fight a principled fight for their values, even if they 'lose', which if course they will, they will have established themselves as credible. If they do it in such a way as to NOT alienate moderate replublicans (tho 'moderate replublican' seems like an oxymoron) then they will have potential allies when each republican interest comes to that thing it cannot condone.

And then there is a nascent alternative path, which is not quite ready for discussion ...

PS I got two notions from the BBC which seem to be political truisms. The first is that in times of trouble, Americans prefer their presidents to be stong, even if they are wrong (they put it 'wrong but strong'). The other is that with an incumbent, the election is always a referendum on the incumbent. Kerry could not have set the campaign agenda, IMHO. And I think he tried to do that but failed, and it was a mistake. He kept bringing up items - the war, the economy, etc - but every time he did, the admin, with its power to move the media just by making announcements, would direct attention elsewhere.

Sometimes a challenge works - Clinton v Bush I - but a lot has to be working in favor of the challenger.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
White Woman Gets Murdered, Race Baiters Most Affected
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:40 - 20 posts
Alex Jones makes himself look an even bigger Dickhead than Piers Morgan on live TV (and that takes some doing, I can tell you).
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:29 - 81 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:11 - 7514 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:02 - 46 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 06:03 - 4846 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 05:58 - 4776 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL