Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I want to thank John Kerry for conceeding as honorably as he did. He proved that he is more worried about the good of this country than his own ego. While I do not like his politics, I respect the man- even more so today than before.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 3, 2004 06:54 PM

I fully agree with Misha. I think it was great that Sen. Kerry conceeded. I wasn’t a big fan of his but now I have a great repect for the man.

Posted by: Shawntae at November 3, 2004 07:19 PM

Apparently, I have it all wrong. As this election has proven, my views
are significantly different than those of the majority (at least the
voting majority) of this country. Issues such as abortion,
homosexuality, and the military have polarized this country and I stand
on the fringe. I think that this is a momentous mistake for the US, one
that will be paid for by subsequent generations. This election has
signified that perhaps the country is conservative by nature. That it
isn’t that much different than 150 years ago. Only now we covertly deny
people of subversive views their right of representation, as opposed to
physically oppressing them. Maybe that’s the accomplishment of the
wealthy ruling class of this country; they were able to free the slaves
because they acquired many more secretly. We have no true
representation in Washington, only the illusion. Large money is
represented to the fullest, with the middle class having been duped into
believing that the current president is looking out for their best
interests. Christians everywhere have been duped into believing that
the president believes in abolishing abortion and gay marriage, because
Bush has convinced them that his definition of Biblical values is just.
Last time I checked, Christ wanted us to love our neighbor, love our
enemy, and treat others as we would want to be treated. Apparently, for
the Bush administration, this only applies to whites in America, not
Iraqis, or Afghanis, or anyone else that falls out of favor with this
administration. I can only hope that the US survives this next four
years without a social and military catastrophe. We have just sent a
message to all those who hate the US, the status quo will continue, find
some cover.

Posted by: Scott at November 3, 2004 07:36 PM

A Tip of the hat to Diebold and Wally O’Dell. He done her good alright.

Posted by: Greg at November 3, 2004 07:57 PM

Thank God the haters of the U.S. were sent this message yesterday. We won’t be intimidated.. passivness does not prevail like the terrorists preceived under the Clinton administration. When a party lifts Michael MooreON up and places him on a pedastal…that party is in dire trouble. One day the Democrats will get it…the radical left has taken the Zell Millers and the moderate Democrats hostage.The Democrat Party does not equal the party of my Father anymore and hasn’t for more then 2 decades.

Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2004 08:26 PM

The only investigation that needs to be done centers around this question: “Why did the mainstream media post exit poll results that were primarily taken from urban precincts and slanted toward femal voters, which are predominantly democrat?” This, coupled with Dan Rather’s liefest, just proves the liberal bias the media holds. This was an obvious attempt to sway Bush supporters away from the polls by trying to convince them that the election was already lost. Democrats the nation can cry foul all they want, but it still does not change the fact that the Republicans absolutely swept the elections this year, indeed, the past four years. As for the aforementioned criers, ask yourself this question: “Why can’t we win in the south or the heartland?” The answer is obvious. A party dominated by the ideology of Michael Moore, Al Franken, Al Sharpton, and George Soros is hopelessly out of touch with mainstream America. There certainly is a hunger for change in America, and that change needs to happen within the Democratic party. On a sidenote, I felt that Sen. Kerry’s concession speech was very gracious, I just hope that he can keep his word and work to heal the division that he, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and MoveOn.org have caused in this country.

Posted by: Michael D. Freeman at November 3, 2004 08:48 PM

As long as liberals focus on lines of thought like “It isn’t fair” or “we were rolled”, or “the election was stolen from us”, or “voters are being disenfranchized”, they will continue to loose. The real focus should be “why is the election map so red and not blue?”

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 3, 2004 08:57 PM

Horribly conducted exit polls skewered to women and urban areas are in no way something you should put your faith in. You should take a look at http://www.electoral-vote.com and see how skewered the polls were this time (and every time) and how there is always a 3-4% “no idea” that can mess with close elections like this.

I think a lot of this election was done by very stubborn people. Conservative Christians who mobilized in force, and angry Bush haters who were far more disorganized than they thought. This wasn’t an election of trying to figure out the other guy, it was two fists meeting to see who was stronger, and the progressive side got beat. Trying to say “it was stolen” or “fraud, fraud” simply postpones what is really necessary—self-examination.

If the Blues want to know why they lost, read a Red book. Read any of the “Red” books on Amazon.com, even if you decide to cross out every passage you hate. Just get a taste of what the other side is thinking (applies equally well to the Blues). Add a few bookmarks to blogs you hate and ideas you disagree with. It will go a lot further toward success in four years than complaining about this vote challenge or that (because I assure you, for every “fraud” you find the Reds will have an equally valid claim in Detroit or Phllly).

Posted by: Andrew Leyden at November 3, 2004 10:14 PM

Speaking of the red and blue election map, check out this national county by county red & blue!Unbelievable!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

I was a democrat for 20 years,though I got more conservative as my kids grew. And the democrats just kept shifting to the left as I moved to the right. But looking at the map (above) it’s obvious that the liberal support is focused around the cities,where through the years they have concentrated on “buying” votes with social givaway programs that are now eating our budget up.With the population we have grown to we just
can’t affort to give so many free rides & “rights” to lazy people & non citizens.The cart is just getting too heavy for those of us pulling it.The red areas on this map are where the majority of tax dollars are raked up, and the blue areas are where they get dumped.They can analyze all they want,but what I think it came down to is the last election being so close, the moral majority got off their lazy butts and went to the polls.But the extreme liberals have a plan (and it’s working) promoting immorality to our youth through mtv & movies & even colleges.Kerry lost because he couldn’t be himself.He followed polls and used himself as a prop,to try to be what he wasn’t.I’m rambling (no sleep last night, sorry). He did do the right thing though. He could have pulled a Gore.

Scott said:

Apparently, I have it all wrong.

That’s right.

Posted by: averagejoe at November 3, 2004 10:39 PM

Of course it is important to know how exit polls are conducted to determine their worthiness as a source, but the study I am suggesting does have a natural control. I was very temperate in what I suggested at the outset, specifically noting that I have no personal knowledge that the claims are true. The arguments about WHERE the polls were conducted would be controlled for in the study, assuming that the exit poll data is sufficiently detailed as to which precincts were polled. While it is possible that exit pollers might be so biased as to specifically target women, minorities, or others who “appear” to be Democrats (I’m very skeptical of that), the study I suggest would control for that too, by comparing the relative results of the exit data with the actual returns from the same precincts, AND looking at if there is a difference between those precincts where Electronic Voting with no paper trail is used versus those having other methods providing a paper trail. These presumably biased reporters would have to be selectively using these unfair methods of choosing voters specifically only in the Electronic Voting areas to defeat that control.

I’m suggesting that a study be done dispassionately, and didn’t even say what should be done with the results. However, IF the jurisdictions using electronic voting were consistently skewed to the Republicans in the official results compared to the exit polling for the same precincts, while the same comparison for precincts where a paper trail is provided showed no such bias, then this voter would be suspicious that fraud did indeed occur.

Without a paper trail that’s all we have to look at. I don’t want to stretch this election out unnecessarily, but we shouldn’t even have allowed systems that don’t provide a paper trail, and I would hope we all agree that we shouldn’t encourage a system where fraud can win an election.

Posted by: Walker at November 3, 2004 11:27 PM

Scott —

You’re not the fringe. You’re among the 48-49% of Americans who believe in individual rights and environmental protection and balanced budgets and who didn’t fall for the “divide and lie and conquer” game played by GWB. It’s very easy to feel defeated and unheard, especially when there are Reds crowing about “sweeping” the election, but look at it this way: If the next four years aren’t a hell of a lot better than the last four the pendulum will swing way, way back.

Mike —

Haters? Interesting. The Deomcratic party has traditionally and strenuously fought for the rights of the poor, the underrepresented, the non-white, women, and pretty much anyone else who isn’t able to fund their own battles. Who is a hater? Could it be a president who wants to deny rights to certain of our citizens because they don’t share his religious beliefs?

Posted by: Alejo at November 4, 2004 10:17 AM

I wonder if we are over analysing this whole thing on Tuesday. I cannot remember how many times I have heard Democrat professionals say that the undecideds trend to the challenger. Maybe in wartime undecideds trend toward the commander in chief. If it is as simple as that then it could prevent the democrats from doing some needless naval gazing.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 4, 2004 04:39 PM

Craig,
It’s not a matter of navel gazing. Your analysis may be correct as to why people voted the way they did. All I’m saying is that there are suspicions around the Diebold electronic voting machines which leave no paper trail, and there is no reason not to do some statistical analysis around the results where those were used to (hopefully) quell those suspicions. If the data is good enough (and I suspect that exit pollers do track all responses by precinct), and if the sample size is big enough per precinct, then I submit that my methodology would be very likely to settle the issue. I’m sure nearly every Bush supporter, and probably most Kerry supporters too, are quite confident that votes weren’t systemically manipulated by Republican operatives who hacked the software, so as the title of this post says, we should welcome the scrutiny.

I’m sure that there are Democrats who would be willing to fund the study, and it shouldn’t be very costly. If somebody reading here believes that I’m claiming a statewide exit poll saying Kerry won 51-49% when the actual result is the opposite proves fraud, then you should reread my post, and my earlier comment, because I am making no such claim. I know the Mark Twain quote about statistics, but properly applied they can be valuable, and if there is no guilt then Republicans should be exonerated. (Actually I wish Mark Twain was around to comment on this Presidency, but I digress)

I recognize that there are dirty tricks in politics, and I would not suggest the election should be questioned because of misleading mailings or phone calls. Everybody wants this to be over. But the suggestion that outright after the fact vote manipulation might have happened which would have been orchestrated by insiders to the vote count or machine setup process is serious, and warrants a closer look.

And next time we should not have systems which do not have a recountable paper trail.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at November 4, 2004 06:17 PM

See this is why I find it hard to LIKE ANY of you conservative zealots. This guy comes up with an idea, purely in the interest of science, to quell his own trepidations and you belittle him for being a “liberal whiner”. Get over yourselves!

Listen, CONSERVATIVES (I know this is something you have trouble doing if it comes from someone even one inch to the left of the center), maybe the reason we democrats continue to LOSE elections is because we cannot stoop to the bilious levels from which we perceive you as operating. Maybe, just maybe, we can not acquiesce our belief systems. We don’t think the same way you guys do. The big difference is that we dont force our beliefs on YOU.
As we see it, you guys equivocate and prevaricate our less astute voters into a level of confusion were they are incapable of rationality. To us, you guys are snakes and weasels who exhibit little veracity and we can not in good faith find common ground with you or give up our ideals and our conciences just to win an election. I am done compromising myself to elect the lesser of two evils. If 51% of Americans postulate exactly the same way as Bush (esspecially on “moral issues”), then I say “Adios”, the other 49% of us can have nothing to do with you anymore. Families have divorced over less discordant issues.

Posted by: Nick at November 4, 2004 07:44 PM

Walker:

I am for a consistant reevaluation of every major election. We can always learn more and better ways to count votes with greater accuracy and fewer problems. True improvements improve democracy.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 4, 2004 09:00 PM

Yes Nick, Yes.

bush campaigned on name calling. He has an mandate only in the context of his last election. He was a “wartime president” and won by the narrowest margin of votes cast of any sitting president since 1916, and the lowest total since Carter beat Ford. more people may have voted for him than any in history, but more voted against him than any sitting president in history as well. He managed to control the perception of reality during the election, but now he has to deal with reality. And the reality is that he has done nothing to protect our ports and borders, and he has pissed off our allies and enemies alike. The next attack on our soil will be his responsibility, but I doubt he will shoulder it.

bob

Posted by: bob at November 5, 2004 10:05 AM

“The big difference is that we dont force our beliefs on YOU.”

Really now?
You want to force people to give up their CHOICE to smoke or not.
You force people to have no CHOICE but to support social security.
You want to force people to leave their life and home in order to save a tree or whatever else is the feel good thing of the day.
You want to force people to give up their CHOICE on what they want to drive.
You force people to have no other CHOICE but to support social programs which they disagree with.
You try to force people to have no CHOICE in when deciding where their children go to school.
You force people to accept your views on how evil prayer is.
These are just a few examples.

Both sides try to FORCE their views onto the other, with total disregard for the others views.
Instead of FORCING, each side should be respecting.

Posted by: kctim at November 5, 2004 12:43 PM

kctim:
Wow, you really have fallen for the predjudices you party has instilled on you. Let me feebily attempt to explain to you the errors of your comments:

You want to force people to give up their CHOICE to smoke or not.

Excuse me here, but I personally think people can destroy their lungs if they CHOOSE to. Where I think you are mistaken here is that I CHOOSE NOT to smoke, and I do not want people who do smoke forcing that smoke on me. That means they can not smoke in an indoor public place (where everyone, smoker or non-smoker, has a right to be) where their smoke could harm more than just them.

You force people to have no CHOICE but to support social security.

Here you may have a point, so I wont bother refuting it because I have not made my mind up on the subject myself.

You want to force people to leave their life and home in order to save a tree or whatever else is the feel good thing of the day.

Huh? What? I consider myself a liberal and I have NEVER left my home to save a tree. I think you mix up liberals in general and the stereotype YOUR party has tagged liberals with. Of course we care about the environment, but we are not all tree hugging hippies. Most of us understand there are better ways to acheive your goals then by strapping yourself to a tree.

You want to force people to give up their CHOICE on what they want to drive.

Again, NO. Sorry, but I have never told someone they cant drive their gas guzzling SUV. While I personally find them unneccessary, it is not my place to tell people what to drive. I think were you are mistaken here is that liberals are more concerned here about what comes out of ALL cars (noxious gases). We don’t ask that you not drive your gas guzzlers, we just want to make sure that the rest of us don’t have to breath the poison your car emmits.

You force people to have no other CHOICE but to support social programs which they disagree with.

I assume here you are talking about abortion? This is one of those issues I just don’t get. The abortion law does NOT say you have to get an abortion. It just says you have that option. If a woman believes that the thing growing inside her body is not a living creature (or capable of life outside the womb), then it should be her choice as to whether or not she wants to keep it. Its not fair for me to tell that person they have to live with this being and deal with the consequences just because GOD put a soul inside this thing at the time of conception. Thats so anti-science that I, personally, cannot award it any merit.

You try to force people to have no CHOICE in when deciding where their children go to school.

I live in Seattle. I think we would all agree that Seattle is one of the more liberal cities in America. Seattle has a very unique school system. Any child in Seattle has the right to attend ANY public school within the city. That means I can CHOOSE what school I want my children to go to.

You force people to accept your views on how evil prayer is.

Wow Tim, before today I wasn’t aware that I thought prayer WAS evil. Thank you for delving into the depths of my mind to explain this to me. Again, I think you are mistaken. I, speaking as a liberal, do not think prayer is evil. I do, however, think it is a very personal thing that each person expresses or can express in their own way. Where I diverge from you is that I do not think it should be REQUIRED (a.k.a. FORCED) on anybody who does not feel the need to pray. I would agree with you that there should be a “silent” period at schools where children can take time for “inward reflection”. If that means the child chooses to pray, then that is their choice. It is NOT fair, though, to tell my non-religious children that they HAVE to pray.

Tim, before you come after me with conservative perceptions of liberal beliefs which are clearly overstated, please refrain. I do not appreciate you telling me what I believe or blaming me for believing things I do not believe. I don’t peg you as a hard lined jesus freak, don’t peg me as a tree hugging hippy.

Thanks,

Nick

Posted by: Nick at November 5, 2004 02:38 PM

One more comment on the last line of your post:
It seems to me, the way I have explained myself, that the people who are FORCING their beliefs on the other is the conservatives. It seems to me (and I will admit that I may be wrong) that conservatives just can’t stand the idea that liberals want to live their life outside the influence of GOD (caps intentional). Why is it your responsibility to fight MY choices in life? I can understanding wanting to fight us if our ways of believing hinder your rights to personal comfort, but I just don’t see that as being the case.

We’ll make you a deal, conservatives. As a liberal, if you conservatives agree to keep Jesus away from us, We’ll keep tree hugging environmental extremists away from you.

Posted by: Nick at November 5, 2004 02:44 PM

Nick:

We will stay out of your bedrooms if you stay out of our boardrooms. Deal??

I am certain, business owners would feel that liberals are the ones forcing their opinions on the world. It is all in whose oxe is getting gored.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 5, 2004 03:02 PM

Well, I was going to stay out of this side discussion, but can’t resist answering that “offer”. What happens in the bedroom between consenting adults usually has little impact on those not directly involved. What happens in the boardroom is a different story if workers or investors are being fleeced, if our environment is being despoiled, or if customers are being endangered. You may think my even saying that means that I presume that corporations necessarily operate with evil intent, but that is not the case. I just don’t share the free marketeers trust that the profit motive is sufficient to rein in excesses. I appreciate that there need to be some company secrets in order for development to proceed fairly and to make it more likely that those with the ideas get the rewards for them, but there are times when that operates to the opposite effect. I reject the notion that your trade is anywhere near equitable.

No deal.

Posted by: Walker at November 5, 2004 04:56 PM

I am glad to see so many thoughtful young voters posting. I’m not young, so I’ll make one observation.

If my bank sent me a statement (but no canceled checks and no listing of my monthly purchases which I could check) saying I had $3 in the bank and I knew I had $50, I’d know something was wrong. If I called said bank and they re-ran the totals and again said, “Oh, yeah,” it’s $3 all right but refused to give me an itemized list or the canceled checks, I believe I’d have a right to be suspicious, or downright mad.

Why are we “accepting” systems with no trail? Is it because we have learned that we can trust politicians (of any stripe) to do the right thing? I think perhaps we’re chasing the wrong horse.

Voters should demand a paper trail. I would go further. As a voter, I should get a copy of my ballet when I leave the polls and should be able at a later date to access the database and see for myself if my votes were correctly assigned.

Come on, we all have computers, you know how “unreliable” and “vulnerable” they are to attack. Why trust the most important outcomes in society to something like this! Diebold, not withstanding.

Posted by: celyn at November 7, 2004 02:14 PM

Nick
“That means they can not smoke in an indoor public place”
- The decision to make it a smoking or non-smoking place should rest on the shoulders of the business owner. FORCING bars to ban smoking is wrong. If you don’t like a place because it is too smokey, go someplace else.

I wasn’t talking about tree huggers, I was talking about property rights.
www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2226

Telling people what kind of car they can drive issue stands on its own. Liberals still want to dictate what others drive.

I wasn’t talking about abortion beliefs. Even though I think murdering innocent children is wrong, as of now I am pro-choice.
Some of what I was talking about are things like: welfare for the ones who do not require it, special programs like needle exchanges, GOVT funded abortions, condom giveaways, so-called cultural awareness parties, faith-based inits, paying farmers not to grow crops, save the tit-mouse crap and others like these.

On schools: You choose which GOVT school your kids go to. If you choose to send your kids to a school where they will get a proper education for todays world, you still have to pay for the govt school in which you do not use. Having to pay for both schools and not having a choice hampers many childrens chances at having a better than average education.

As an atheist, I have dealt with the prayer issue for a long time. As far as I know, there hasn’t been an instance where someone was FORCED to pray, but everyday, many are forced not to. Liberal parents are sueing to stop schools, sports teams, social clubs etc… so that they cannot hold prayers.

“Why is it your responsibility to fight MY choices in life?”
- It isn’t. But it also is not the govts either.

“I can understanding wanting to fight us if our ways of believing hinder your rights to personal comfort, but I just don’t see that as being the case.”
- Liberal beliefs/govt control severly hinders my rights to personal comfort.

Nick, I argue with conservatives all the time about this.
My liberal preceptions are not conservative based, they are founded in what happens everyday in the US and can be read in any newpaper.

Posted by: kctim at November 8, 2004 12:07 PM

I also find it funny that you consider me a conservative.
I AM:
- pro-choice(right now)
- pro gay marriage rights
- against the “drug war”
- against religion in govt
- an atheist

How am I a conservative? Could you please explain this to me?

Posted by: kctim at November 8, 2004 12:17 PM