Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Elections' started by MikeLastort2, Nov 5, 2004.
Amen. My one time $600 and $100 a year in taxes doesn't make up for the fact that i'm making $7000 less annually than i did 2 years agoand no longer have sick leave. But maybe if i was a corporate CEO i'd feel differently.
That is an interesting map. So what the hell happened in Maine (my home state)? The young people voted for Bush and everyone else voted for Kerry?
I have no idea how much of a tax break you got, but you're really saying it offsets all of Bush's other failures since he became president? You're willing to turn a blind eye to his piss-poor performance because you got a tax break?
I didn't say every Bush voter was a Bigot-American, any more than every Kerry voter was young. I was saying Bigot-Americans outpolled the youth vote.
Okay, every Bush voter IS a Bigot-American, but that wasn't the specific point I was making there.
As far as I know I am not a Bigot-American. In fact, I don't even know where the hell Bigot is, or even what kind of hateful slur it is that Bigot-American is supposed to replace.
I said an effective mass media propaganda machine.
You know, the B-word. B!gger.
Well, have you listened to Rush lately? They all go stale after awhile.
I am puzzled at how you liberals keep Dan Rather and Baba Wawa in business, however. They should have been dead meat after Carter lost to Reagan.
I don't think I've ever listened to Rush.
And I can't stand Rather. He's an idiot. Gilda Radner was much funnier as Baba Wawa that Barbara Walters ever was good as a reporter.
No, he did not -- the gay marraige bans passed in Michigan and Oregon which both went to Kerry.
Liberal? One of the two reporters you mentioned dated Alan Greenspan.
Hmm....really? It "came through?" Someday you'll learn the meaning of the words you write. I ain't holdin' my breath.
Young voters were supposed turn out in droves to produce a Kerry victory. Sorry, Boss, and P-Diddy, they didn't, cementing their reputations as no-shows -- again. Not even Kerry's last-minute attempt to raise the specter of a military draft managed to move them off the dime. Young voters came out in almost precisely the same percentages they did in 1992, 1996 and 2000.
All the outreach to young voters, from music video campaigns to get-out-the-vote efforts on campus, had at least a nominal effect, as more 18-to-24-year-olds went to the polls this year than in 2000. As a group, this age bracket strongly supported Kerry.
But less than 10 percent of voters were under 25, about the same percentage as in 2000. Thus the Kerry campaign's hope for a big push from energized youth did not pan out.
same percentage as compared to the whole, which increased mightilty. actually, 5 million more young voters came out this time, which would normally be a sizable accomplishment. but this year every demo's numbers were up, so even by adding 5 million more voters the youngans still stayed at 17%, the exact same as in 2000.
not to mention they didn't vote overwhelmingly for kerry, as many of the pundits had thought.
I will give you a chance to rescind your offer.
I really don't remember anyone saying Kerry was the best candidate the Democrats could offer.
I did, and I still would say that. Of the ones who ran, anyway. Clark, Lieberman, Gephart, Dean, they all would have been dogmeat for dubya.
But I'm not a Democrat.
He must have been looking for some easy show biz nookie
You know, that really is a pathetic crop of candidates. Edwards was probably the best of the lot that ran, except for his inexperience.
The Democrats are going to have to start gromming their '08 candidate now, and it CANNOT be Hillary.
Did Greenspan date Dan Rather?
Yeah, but Edwards would have been a big gamble. BIG gamble, considering his inexperience and general party bona fides.
I thought that Kerry ran a decent campaign. He made some mistakes, sure, but he was nowhere near the embarassment that Bob Dole was.
I thought that kerry's biggest mistake was walking into the swift boat vets with his eyes wide shut.
What the Dems need to do over the course of these four years is get Americans to RECONSIDER their current TAKE on Christ-like behaviour. To compare and contrast, with the support to a variety of clergy and religious institutions like the UCC, the clear Commands and Directives of Christ with the bombing of weddings, women and children in Iraq, an attack and invasion which doesn't come close to even the sad Just War test of my dogmas, including the Catholic Church.
They need to cast the Republican leadership, the neocon leadership, as what they are: a group that has actively and passively allowed a conception of a nonviolent, loving Christ who lived, taught, and died nonviolently to become, well, Rambo.
Then, MOST importantly, they eed to offer an alternative. Friedman said one thing in that March 2003 SAIS lecture that has stuck with me in my analysis of the States and the neocon empowerment.
He said that UBL and his small band were offering "an authentically Arab, authentically Muslim retrograde vision to the people. What's needed to counter that is an authentically Arab, authentically Muslim progressive vision." I agree with that; it is about ideas, and ideation, or thr process of coming to engage any idea, that is the first and last "battleground," there, and, now, in the States.
The neocons are offering an authentically American, authentically Christian retrograde vision of America and the world to people. What's needed to counter that is an authentically American, authentically spiritual progressive vision. Not just a talking point, but a VISION that folks can organise around, can go to sleep feeling good and empowered by, and, most importantly, that allows people to live fearlessly with.
Now who, in the entirety of the Democratic Party machine, can offer that?
That's the problem. The candidate, or even the kingmaker, is not on our screens or scopes right now. The very thing/person/movement that the Dems need is the very thing that is entirely missing, IMO. Daschle and Pelosi acquiescing to the war, Obama talking about attacking Iran, Sharpton being Sharpton, Jesse being Jesse, Hillary being Hillary; nope, noone at all.
Having some days to reflect and reading various articles attempting to explain the results, I've resigned myself to accepting the theory that the fear of terrorists was the trump card that just couldn't be beat here. I also believe that people didn't want to be forthcoming and say, "I'm afraid of terrorists, so I'm going to ignore the facts and figures, and vote for the guy that talks about 'old sayings in Texas, wanted Dead or Alive...etc...etc...'" and that's where the "moral" issue comes in to play. What are the chances that, besides being an opportunity for folks to make a moral stand, it served as a veil for many people to cloak a concious decision to ignore what should have been a 7 point kiss of death?
Perhaps it's just that I need some kind of rationale to come to grips with the fact that 59 million people looked at that list and said, "I'm okay with that."
Regarding the Democrats trying to incorporate 'faith' into their platform, they've got to be very careful with that, and I actually think it really smacks of 'flavor of the moment'. If a Dem candidate does in fact incorporate religion into his/her daily life, then fine, that's great. If it's just for show, then it's going to fool nobody. I'm doubtful that henceforth "values" will be a major point in all future elections. In 2004 "values" was the blitzing linebacker and the Dems never called an audible. For whatever reason, they lacked the tactical savvy to recognize something different was afoot.
Funny thing is...once Bush is gone I might be okay with voting for a moderate Republican, so the manner in which the Democrats proceed form here may or may not concern me in the future.