Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Dawn:

I dont mean to denigrate 3rd parties, but at this point I dont see anyone “good” from a third party. By good, I mean politically viable for the Presidency. If McCain ever wanted to, he could probably forge a good 3rd party run, but you would need a man of his public stature to do it.

Republicans: Bill Frist, Jeb Bush, John McCain, George Pataki(boo), Rudy Giuliani, Bob Erlich….

Democrats: John Kerry, Evan Bayh John Edwards, Tom Vilsack, Mark Warner, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and the ever mentioned Hillary.

As Bill Clinton showed in 92 though, someone can come out of the woodwork and be a challenger, and maybe even win.

Posted by: at November 23, 2004 09:14 AM

Dawn, did Kerry actually blame it on the tape? You didn’t provide a link or a quote, and I’ve never seen or heard anything like that from him.

BTW, it cracks me up how fixated Republicans get on former Democratic presidents and challengers.

You guys won. Get over it.

Hmm… But that means you guys would need to start talking about Bush’s record rather than just trash-talking Democrats.

Nevermind. I guess trash-talking Kerry is still the best strategy for Republicans. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2004 09:34 AM

Re. Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton running for president…

Something in me revolts at the idea of more members of America’s “first families” taking the oval office. There’s something eminently un-American about dynasties, and the thought that we could conceivably have Hillary from ‘08 to ‘16 and then Jeb Bush from ‘16 to ‘24… scary. Improbable, but still scary.

Of course, by 2024, George P. Bush would be ready to run for president….

Posted by: Chops at November 23, 2004 09:43 AM

AP
It was in an interview with Geraldo Rivera over at FoxNews.

Fox News Channel’s Geraldo Rivera caught up to Kerry on Thursday in Little Rock, Ark., where he was attending the opening of the Clinton Presidential Library.

“Tough luck, senator,” Rivera said to Kerry, referring to his Election Day defeat.
According to Rivera, Kerry replied:

“It was that Osama tape — it scared them [the American people].”

Kerry told the Fox host that the terror master’s October surprise came too late - just four days before the vote - for him to counter.

“Senator Kerry clearly believes not only is it the security issue that cost him the election, but very specifically the Osama tapes coming out in the 11th hour,” Rivera reported Friday.

They have a clip there also.

Posted by: kctim at November 23, 2004 10:20 AM

Your mostly correct. And your reaction to the UBL tape was on target as well. If you followed the poll numbers closely as I did, Bush actually LOST ground when that tape came out. In fact, in the two days following the tape’s release, Kerry went up in most of the polls by about 1%. Only in those 2 or 3 days after that period did Bush regain the lead and take the win.

Again, just like Kerry blaming Fox, Sinclair, conservative talk radio, and everybody else on the planet for his loss, he never accepts responsibility. When he fell while snowboarding, he blamed it on a secret service agent (and called him a really nasty name). When he fell on his mountain bike, he blamed it on “loose sand”. When he fell while windsurfing, he blamed it on the lack of wind.

Of all the constant finger-pointing towards Bush about not owning up to mistakes, I’ve never seen any evidence of Kerry ever accepting responsibility for anything.

Posted by: Bryan Williams at November 23, 2004 10:32 AM

Really AP -

Thanks for pointing out that since I think the Dems have it wrong about what cost them the election I am being a sore winner.

——-
There seems to be a shift going on in our country and to blame it on GOD Lovers is completely misguided in my opinion.

Apparently the NY Times has come out with yet another poll about our President. His approval ratings are rising.
That shows me that people who voted against him were not voting FOR Kerry.
Some of the Dems are blaming it on a religious movement of sorts and have even said they need to learn to ‘talk’ about God if they have any plans to win back the RED states.
I think it has more to do with certain people trying to tell the American people how they should think and feel. Making them feel as if they aren’t very smart, and trying to ‘force’ change that most Americans are not ready for.
Taking baby steps towards change is a lot better than trying to make people feel like they are being backed into a corner.
Of course I am just one of those people living smack dab in the middle of a RED state that probably has no clue about anything.

Posted by: dawn at November 23, 2004 11:40 AM

Thanks kctim !

Posted by: dawn at November 23, 2004 11:46 AM

Everybody’s got their opinion about what lost Kerry the election, and I think Kerry is entitled to his. I mean, damn it, is it that unreasonable when other poll results said that Bush had strong numbers on terrorism? The Republican problem is that they will jump on Democrat for things as small as not covering their mouths when they sneeze. This is a further example of how no statement, no matter how reasonable, is allowed to escape criticism when it comes from a Democrat.

As for all those little rumors, Dawn, I think they’re further example of such nitpicking. You would not tolerate such obsessive-compulsive criticism from Democrats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2004 12:37 PM

“This IS a further example of how no statement, no matter how reasonable, IS allowed to escape criticism when it comes from a Democrat.”

That depends on what the meaning of is “is.”
That WAS a pretty reasonable statement, right?

Posted by: kctim at November 23, 2004 12:42 PM

That osama tape had references from Moore’s movie also, with Moore seated next to Carter at the convention, well…I don’t think that helped Kerry either.

Posted by: Beagle at November 23, 2004 12:46 PM

That tape , oh please , give me a break ! That has nothing to do with a election and it costing Kerry from being elected . That is poppy cock and so stupid to boot . I think he needs to grow up and stop crying over spilt milk . He needs to get over it already . The country as a whole has moved on , why can’t he ? The American public is not as stupid as they may think we are . We can think for ourselves and do not need someone to think for us . We are not robots who need constant supervision or children for that matter . He is beginning to sound lilke Al Gore back in 2000 who could not accept the fact that he lost . Please move on ! I feel the Democrats have lost touch with the people in our country . They from what I have seen have allowed that Hollywood control their party . I hate to break if to them , but the vast majority of people do not give a crap what these celebrities say as far as politics . They have even lost touch with mainstream America . I know there are exceptions to everything . I also know not all are like that . I just think that , that is not going to be reported on . With that being said , that just makes the retoric that much worse . How can this country move on and forward when you have these statements being made on the news and in articles . That just makes matters worse and does nothing but divide America . They have lost touch with our values and morals that a lot of Americans want . Our country was founded on judeo - Christian principals and freedome of religion . We also have freedom of speech . In my opinion little by little we are having our freedom of speech taken away from us . I have to wonder how these special interest groups who speak up about their rights and what they think socirty should be like and defined as and it makes me wonder why in the heck do they get mad and upset because someone may see things different than they do . We will never please anyone , and people will never agree on the issues . I just know you need to talk about the issues and come to a understanding that meets in the middle to make things better . We should not have to take ” Under God ” out of the pledge of Alegience . Even our fore fathers acknowledged the aspect of the creator of heaven and earth . Abraham LIncoln said that people have God given rights and that are endowed by our creator . Every President through history has acknowledged God . Why should we have our freedom of speech taken away because of a few ? That takes away our rights . I have never seen such crap in my life . Everyone throughout history has said the same pledge of Alegience to our flag and with the phrase Under God . Through the years we have said this in respect for our flag and the aspect of the freedoms we have today because of the blood that was shed to keep our country from people who want to distroy us . In years past no one has ever said a word about Under God being in our pledge . Why now all of a sudden ? What about our rights and our freedom of speech ? Why do we get criticized when we use our freedom of speech ? If they want people to listen to them and their voice then they need to listen to all voices . Not a certain few ! I am so sick of that . If you do not want to say the pledge or you do not want your child to say it then so be it . We have a right to voice our opinion too . Just because we do not agree does not give them does not give them the right to silence everyone else . I understand that all people have rights , but it should not over shadow everyone else .
I think that people knew full well what they were doing when our country re-elected President George Bush . That does not make us stupid !! We just saw through the smoke screen . They need to get back to main stream America and find out what the people want instead of special interest groups . They were elcected to represent us the voters . They need to find out what the people see as far as values and morals . Then work on a strategy to move the democrats forward and move on instead of blaming others for the election and the loss . Stop the blame game ! It makes them look like children who do not get their way so they pitch a fit . Get over it already !!

Posted by: Riley4 at November 23, 2004 01:10 PM

AP,

“BTW, it cracks me up how fixated Republicans get on former Democratic presidents and challengers. I guess trash-talking Kerry is still the best strategy for Republicans.”

No, not for the republicans…

Actually, AP, It’s the DEMOCRATS who need to be fixated on why their candidates are loosing. Instead, they are making up stuff to make it sound as if their loosing was a fluke. If you listen to some of our “trash talk,” you might just figure out what was wrong with Kerry. This is essential if you want a democrat to win in ‘08.
And don’t forget - mid terms are less than two years away and the Democrats have been loosing seat after seat in Congress. Instead of simply expecting a majority, maybe they should try something wild and off-the-wall like, oh I don’t know, actually figuring out what the people want?
All through the election, the Democrats accused President Bush of not admitting any mistakes. It’s time for them to admit their own - IF they can figure out what they are.

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 01:14 PM

Traveler,

Said a lil harshly, but 100% correct.

Posted by: Beagle at November 23, 2004 01:24 PM

Stephen,

“As for all those little rumors, Dawn, I think they’re further example of such nitpicking. You would not tolerate such obsessive-compulsive criticism from Democrats.”

Really???? Didn’t we tolerate it during the entire election????
At least the criticisms from the right are based on facts, not forged documents, propagandistic “documentaries” and obviously slanted news stories.
Read what I told AP. We’re trying to tell you how to win next time! All you have to do is listen for a change!

All,
My prediction for ’08…
As a New Yorker I’d like to see Giuliani vs. Hillary.
But more realistically, it will be Rice vs. a yet-to-be selected democratic governor.
I doubt we will see any major showing from a third party.

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 01:36 PM

It is still important to realize how slim the majority really was. I am not sure the majority of the people even know the values that the democratic party stands for. It’s really said that these evangelicals are manipulated by the right. The church is all about keeping down the masses. Some of these people are not even capable of forming their own opinions. They go to church every sunday and listen wholeheartedly to their pastors and preachers and do not challange anything, even in light of evidence that proves otherwise. Tapping into the churches was a great move for the right. These people will believe anything you feed them. They truly think that they have done the right thing. As we sit back and see God’s green earth wither away from policies that favor capital over god’s creation, the wool will be pulled over their eyes. Bush is destroying God’s earth.

Posted by: Selena Keller at November 23, 2004 01:48 PM

Selena,
Most of your comments show nothing but anti-religious bigotry, so I won’t comment on them.
But you started by saying:

“It is still important to realize how slim the majority really was. I am not sure the majority of the people even know the values that the democratic party stands for.”

President Bush actually received a majority of the vote, which is more than we can say for a certain democratic president. And what do you know, his approval ratings are raising.
As for the “values” the Democratic Party stands for, what are they?
Not being Bush is not a value, and that’s all Kerry ran on. Of course the people don’t know what you stand for… You don’t tell them!
Telling the people what you stand for is one of the keys to winning elections.

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 02:06 PM

Nice post, Selena. You said it best.

To the rest of you idiot Bushites, consider the following:

Kerry lost. American lost.

I wouldn’t blame it on Osama. I blame it on the crafty lies of George Bush and Karl Rove & the imbecilic stupidity of the Amurikan sheeple, including yourselves.

You want to contemplate infinity? Just consider the limitless stupidity of the Amurikan sheeple.

You claim “mainstream Amurika” elected Bush? Maybe you’re right. You know why? I don’t think you have a clue.

It is because “mainstream Amurika” is only concerned with a few simple things. they care nothing at all about anything else. Here, I’ll list them for you:

TV
God (only when it’s convenient)
Football
Cheap, pig-swill beer
Shiny fast cars
BushShit (they especially like this)

Mainstream Amurika is made up of ignorant, ill-educated, unintelligent morons. If you are one of those who voted for more of the same, say goodbye to this country, asshole(s).

Posted by: Escobar at November 23, 2004 02:20 PM

Anonymous,

Good Post! And it makes more sense than the original!
LOL!

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 02:21 PM

Escobar,

Your post illustrates everything that wrong with the kook left.
If you talk with most Democrats, they won’t agree with you either. It’s people like you who lost the election for them.
While we’re on the subject of elections, you don’t win them by insulting people.

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 02:29 PM

Riley4:

You need to get your facts straight:

Abraham LIncoln said that people have God given rights and that are endowed by our creator

Thomas Jefferson wrote that in the Declartion of Independence before Lincoln was even born.

veryone throughout history has said the same pledge of Alegience to our flag and with the phrase Under God . Through the years we have said this in respect for our flag and the aspect of the freedoms we have today because of the blood that was shed to keep our country from people who want to distroy us . In years past no one has ever said a word about Under God being in our pledge . Why now all of a sudden ?

You don’t know the history of the Pledge do you? “Under God” was added in 1954. The Pledge was written in 1892. You should go hereand find the real facts.

Also, not all liberals support removing “under God” from the pledge. I believe can stay as long as no one is forced to say this paticular clause.

Why do we get criticized when we use our freedom of speech ?

You mention this almost a dozen times; who exactly is criticizing or preventing your use of free speech? By posting here you exercise your first ammendment right and based on your earliey innacuracies I would guess this claim is also false; that is unless you can give proof.

__________________

As to why Bush won, I personally think it was a combination of the high ammount of mobilization of the religious right due to the fact that the envioroment of most churches is to not question whatever the pastor says and the fact that less voters under the age of 30 voted than expected voted as this group was largely pro-Kerry in polls done that targeted them.

Posted by: Warren at November 23, 2004 02:37 PM

Sorry to keep going on about it…

Escobar, main stream American also voted for Bush AND Kerry! Do you think it might have been you kooks with your hate Bush/hate America agenda that swung the election away from Kerry?
Are you at least open-minded enough to accept that?

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 02:41 PM

Why do we get criticized when we use our freedom of speech ?

The above is supposed to be in block quotes.

Posted by: Warren at November 23, 2004 02:43 PM

“Whatever the pastor says, the church is all about keeping the masses down, believe anything you feed them.”

Wow, I’m dummer than I thunk I was. Sheee it.

Could this be part of the Democratic Party’s image problem?

Posted by: George at November 23, 2004 03:11 PM

Mainstream Amurika is made up of ignorant, ill-educated, unintelligent morons.

Posted by Escobar at November 23, 2004 02:20 PM

Yes it most certainly is. I just LOVE irony.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 23, 2004 03:14 PM

Traveler,
Did I insult you? Good. You said, “You don’t win them (elections) by insulting them.” I agree. You win them by lying to ignorant voters/ citizens and cheating. The Repugs did that in 2000 and they’ve done it again in 2004.

And you’re right about another thing. I absolutely hate Bush, and I hate everything about this country that distracts its citizens from the truth and causes them to vote for the lying scoundrel. This WAS a fine country, until the fundamentalist money-grubbing right wingnut radicals got their hands on its throat. Put profit ahead of the environment? Fine. Kiss the environment goodbye, and then the economy.

Joebagodonuts,
You’re funny! But you’re wrong. I am most definately not a member of mainstream America.

Think about this. Go back to about 1775. In this country, we use “boxes” to make change in government. First, it’s the soap box. If that fails, it’s the ballot box. When that fails, it’s the jury box. When all of the above fails, we will get out the cartridge box. So get ready, suckers.

Posted by: Escobar at November 23, 2004 03:33 PM

Kerry gets crap for windsurfing. He gets crap for going hunting. He gets crap for marrying a woman richer than he is. He gets crap for being born a Boston Brahmin. He gets crap for the fact that he doesn’t write speeches with an endless series of boiled down bumper-stickers for text. He gets crap for having money left over at the end of a campaign, he gets crap for breathing, walking, and above all for being a liberal Democrat. The Republican pundits mercilessly misquoted him, taking multiple admirable positions and falsely portraying them as craven evidence of cowardice and unamericanism by leaving out crucial sentences and context.

It was one nitpick, one lie, one slander after another. And you Republicans accepted it. Why? Because Bush had to be president for another term. This after screwing up the opportunity to make American security a cause for the world. This after building a case for war on rigid prejudices and intelligence he knew was then, on pieces of intelligence he should have known were bogus. Principle in one’s intentions does not matter when it’s compromised by incompetence and failures of principles elsewhere.

The Republican media machine is not worried about giving people the facts, they are concerned with telling them what to think, with talking points directly funneled to them by the Republican political establishment. As long as that’s the case, this country will go downhill, because we will be beset with one fraud, one collosal screwup after another as the talk radio folks, conservative pundits, FOXnews, and others cover for and equivocate for the Republican party.

Kerry did fantastically well in the face of this, because the political gains of the Republicans have come at a price: There are a large contingent of Democrats out there who are sick and tired of being criticized, of being told to sit down, shut up and take it, and there are large swaths of disillusioned Republicans and voters looking for something to believe in.

In the end, I point out this nitpicking as a warning: The time to take free potshots at the Democrats for anything and everything is over. Facts will matter. I don’t mind disagreement, but if you Republicans continue to make mountains out of molehills, we will start to bring down the mountains on top of you.

When the Reddening of the country was merely a domestic issue, our resistance was weak, we weren’t well motivated. But now this determines our country’s national security, you will find a generation of Democrats, myself included, who no longer go along to get along, who are willing to fight for their beliefs because they believe they are fighting for their country thereby. Bush is no longer a laughing matter for many of us. Whether or not he was culpable for letting 9/11 happen, Bush is responsible for what has been done in the aftermath. It is this period in our history, rightly seen by all sides as crucial, that is the source for our criticisms. Democrats don’t care that Bush goes down to his ranch. They care that a memo indicating the threat to our country when unseen by him there, on his vacation. Democrats don’t care that Bush made a joke at a press dinner. They care that his joke was about WMDs he hadn’t found, and that hundreds of people died trying to find and disarm a dictator of. As unforgiving and unrelenting as our attacks have been, they have been substantive, about crucial matters to our security, to our nation’s wellbeing. But that is besides the point to those who try to buy their safety by political loyalty to incompetents and ideologues. I’m sick of the smallness of the rhetoric coming from Republicans, especially in the light of their domination of our nation’s government. I doubt when this country was founded they anticipated it would become a spoiled-bratocracy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2004 03:44 PM

escobar
“we will get out the cartridge box”

- What are you going to do with them? throw them at the evil right wingers? Guns are evil, remember.
Guess its back to the soap box.

“I absolutely hate Bush, and I hate everything about this country that distracts its citizens from the truth and CAUSES them to vote for the lying scoundrel.”

- kerry CAUSED many people to vote for Bush.
You hate America, I love America and we both hated kerry.
Wow, at least we agree on something.

Posted by: kctim at November 23, 2004 03:47 PM

Escobar,
You’re not insulting me, you’re insulting the intelegance and beliefs of most mainstream democrats who lost because of people like you..
I notice you didn’t argue the point that you are a kook.

“I am most definately not a member of mainstream America.”

That’s the first thing you’ve said that I agree with!

“In this country, we use “boxes” to make change in government. First, it’s the soap box. If that fails, it’s the ballot box. When that fails, it’s the jury box. When all of the above fails, we will get out the cartridge box. So get ready, suckers.”

So you’re going to take the country by force with your “cartridge box?” Or are you going to use random acts of terrorism? Kind of makes me glad I’m in the National Guard! But I hope the FBI gets to you first.

Seriously, take your que frome someone like AP. At least he uses facts in his posts!
You can have political opinions without insulting the voters or threatening violance.

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 03:53 PM

“I doubt when this country was founded they anticipated it would become a spoiled-bratocracy.”

- They didn’t envision a socialist democracy either.

Posted by: kctim at November 23, 2004 04:01 PM

Stephen:

Congratulations on that rant. Thats also what Democrats said in 2000 and in 2002, when they got their tails handed to them. I’ve heard the threats before, and also the whining fingerpointing. I love hearing it because it means that the Dems aren’t looking inward to blame themselves, but are looking outward for someone…anyone…to blame for their failure to connect with the people.

Stephen, you still claim Kerry ran a great campaign, but was misquoted and mischaracterized by the great Republican machine. But even Democrats are faulting Kerry, and he deserves it. He ran on not being Bush, and when that stopped working, he pretended to be tough by repeating over and over how he would kill them terrorists.

Face it, politics is a rough game. Kerry played rough and so did Bush. Bush won fair and square. So…bring on the sour grapes all you like, because it’s a sweet smell for the other side. I’d prefer the Democrats to look up from the canvas, as Thomas Hearns once did at Marvin Hagler, and know that their best this time just wasnt good enough. And then hit the training room again to prepare for next time.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 23, 2004 04:07 PM

Off topic but…

Giuliani V Hillary will be 2006, for the NY Senate seat, Rudy wins in a squeaker.

Both are known and liked nationally, neither are electable nationally. Both will have this explained to them very soon by their respective partys.

2008?..my best guess today would be Frist V Richardson, unless a Rep. Governor (besides Jeb Bush) steps forward.

The ones you can cross off the list forever..Rudy,Jeb, Arnold, Rice, on the Dem side you can scratch Kerry, Hillary, and Jennifer Grandholm.

You heard it here first folks.

Posted by: Beagle at November 23, 2004 04:13 PM

And still missing the point ….

Escobar,
If you are only here to call people stupid for not thinking the same as you, then what is your reason for entering a discussion?
Maybe you should try explaining why you think Kerry was a better choice instead of bashing Bush voters.
Hate — that should work really well to get people to understand and agree with you - Not.
And … it’s the Kerry voters who like the shiny fast cars. Bush voters drive gas guzzling SUVs and big honkin’ pick-up trucks.
TV & beer? Should we prefer radios & scotch?

—-
It’s amazing how upset people are getting at Republicans when they are only repeating what they have heard from Democrats.
Kerry is entitled to his opinion and the Democrat leaders to theirs … but when someone that is not a Democrat tries to discuss these opinions it does not always mean they are bashing.
Is it just off limits to repeat something said by the other party?
—-
People that want to take GOD out of the pledge don’t seem to realize they are infringing on other’s rights. Just don’t say GOD in the pledge. It isn’t hard to leave it out - skip the word. Freedom of speech belongs to those that want the Pledge just as it is too.
Yes, it was changed in ‘54 but it wasn’t done because 1% of the population wanted it. If it was such an awful thing to do I doubt it would have happened to begin with.
—-
Why are the people who think there is NO GOD so afraid of Him? Or just the people who believe?
What is it that God Lovers are going to do? Make you think? Make you question?
For some, believing in God is a way to help them through tough times. I wouldn’t try to take that away from anyone.
Just like I wouldn’t ever call anyone ignorant for not believing and doing whatever they do to get through tough times.
Just because the sky doesn’t open up and angels don’t come flying down to earth when you are on hard times ….
To assume that all church goers don’t believe in science is wrong.
Prove the earth was created by a little ameba being in the right place at the right time and you God haters can extinguish God forever.

—-
The discussion was not supposed to be about God Lovers anyway. It is supposed to be about us - the American people and who are the right people to be leading us.
Since this election has been decided it only seemed fitting to talk about the next one.

The voters have changed. People know more about issues and care more about who is actually elected into office.
The first step in discovering what people really want was not in this election. ‘06 will show it more.

Posted by: dawn at November 23, 2004 04:26 PM

Stephen Daugherty,
Your recent post here is an excellent verbalization of the intense, albeit restrained frustration that some of the Democrats and Kerry supporters are experiencing following the political, economic and intellectual highjacking of our country. You convey the sense that many of us are simply fed up. Fed up with the lies, the mediocrity, the criminal misconduct of elected officials, the wanton waste of our tax dollars.

Unfortunately, what the Dems have shown so far is that they are not willing to fight, in any sense whatsoever. But there is hope. Thanks for your encouragement.

Traveler,
Mainstream democrats (of which I am not one; I’m more of an anarchist green libertarian) did not lose the election because of “kooks” like me. They “lost” because they are wimps. Unwilling to fight, unwilling to make a case where evidence clearly shows fraud in the election, and unwilling to call a lying Repug a scum-sucking dog and knock him down in the street where he (or she) belongs.

I am not threatening violence, nor do I have any desires of “taking over the country by force.”
I will state here that when the bloody Civil War we are facing in this country arrives, I am ready. I dispise lying politicians, I have no use whatsover for an electorate of monkeys, except as rifle targets, and the fact that “mainstream Americans” are stupid is sickening and disgusting.

That’s nice that you are in the Guard. When chaos comes, you’ll be able to earn your pay keeping order. Ha Ha. Just try.

Posted by: Escobar at November 23, 2004 04:28 PM

Talk about ‘being led by the nose’… how can anyone truely believe that any politician (rep. or dem.) is telling ‘the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them ….God’.
Most all of them are full of whatever crap they think their voters want to hear.

Posted by: dawn at November 23, 2004 04:40 PM

Traveler:

There are those who understand how to have civil debate, and there are those whose minds are so closed that they cannot understand much of anything beyond that which they say. I’d suggest you focus on those whose intelligence comes through in their comments, and leave those whose simpleness comes through to fend for themselves.

By leaving them alone, you will not pollute your own mind with their drivel and filth.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 23, 2004 04:44 PM

Escobar,

“I’m more of an anarchist green libertarian”

I figured that out already.

“I am not threatening violence, nor do I have any desires of “taking over the country by force.”
I will state here that when the bloody Civil War we are facing in this country arrives, I am ready. I dispise lying politicians, I have no use whatsover for an electorate of monkeys, except as rifle targets, and the fact that “mainstream Americans” are stupid is sickening and disgusting. “

How is that not threatening violence????

“the Dems have shown so far is that they are not willing to fight… They “lost” because they are wimps. Unwilling to fight “

Then How can there be a civil war?

So the less than one percent that agree with your viewpoint are going to start a war? Looks like you WILL have to resort to terror after all.

BTW, If this is the way you feel about President Bush, How many heart attacks did you have when Regan was in the White House?

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 04:51 PM

Joebag,
But I’m having fun! Please?
;)

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 04:57 PM

Traveler:

Far be it from me to prevent you from having fun!

THERE I SAID IT. A conservative condoning FUN!!!

What will the left do now that I have usurped their position on fun. All the other positions are gone (John Kerry took them all, and horded both sides of each one too). What will they do…what will they do?

Hint: I’m guessing they will complain….

Posted by: joewbagodonuts at November 23, 2004 05:07 PM

I had to comment on what was said above to me by Warren . Dude , you are missing the point . The point is we all have rights under the constitution . Second , I know the jest of what Lincoln was saying in that . So , I know what he said maybe not word for word , but I know . I have to wonder why people keep blaming the Republicans for everything that happens to them . Get a grip , that is about as stupid as a actual cow jumping over the moon . I did not say all democrats were in favor of taking the phrase Under God out of the constitution . I said there are those that do . What does your party stand for anyway ? What are there values and morals ? I have never heard a democrat have strong convictions and sticking to them . They wonder why Americans reelected George Bush and think that those Americans are just plain stupid . So , if that is the case then the majority of all Americans are stupid by that logic . The people make up their own minds , give me a break . I know the history of the pledge full well , I am no idiot like you might think . Who died and made you judge an jury . I know my history and know full well what was said and not said so get off it dude ! Dude , I would say find out what your party beleives in because most of the country does not even know the answer to that question . Can you tell me what they stand for on values and morals ? Most people have no idea what the democrats beleive in now days . Can you name their values and morals and inlighten the rest of us ? I thni everyone here would love to know the answer to that one . I know there are good democrats out there so get off it already . I like Zell MIller and Joseph Liberman . I respect them . I know they do not hold all the views I do , but at least they listen to what their constituients are saying to them . I suggest you take the speck out of your own eye before you try taking it out of someone else .

Posted by: Riley4 at November 23, 2004 05:15 PM

Beagle,

“Giuliani V Hillary will be 2006, for the NY Senate seat, Rudy wins in a squeaker.”

I’d be loving every minute of it. It would be more interesting than this year’s election: Schumer vs. What’s-his-name. Seriously, I don’t even remember who the Republican was. He hardly did any campaigning. boooreing.

“The ones you can cross off the list forever..Rudy,Jeb, Arnold, Rice, on the Dem side you can scratch Kerry, Hillary, and Jennifer Grandholm.”

I think you can add Edwards to that list as well, although the comedy relief was fun this time around. Why do you think they would run Frist and not Rice?

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 05:30 PM

This was a good article/post, It soon went to (what seems to be hate from the left), I can’t condone it but…DAMN …I’m interested now!

I wait with baited breath, ( I have em all, trout, catfish, whatever), for the next comment on this thread.

Posted by: Beagle at November 23, 2004 05:34 PM

Hey brothers & sisters! I’m glad we’re having fun NOW! When our country falls to its knees, thanks to Bush and his policies, if not the Karma of the universe, the fun will be over. And then you Bush supporters can complain, eh? Joewbagodonuts? You’re right Joe, I am simple. I don’t clutter my life with crap from the mainstream media. therefore, it is so easy to see through the lies of the Bushites.

Dawn,
Meanwhile, the Kerry people will keep driving their “shiny fast cars” (yeah, I know, I’m wrong, the Repugs are driving the gas guzzling SUV’s and huge pickups, and driving like rude assholes, I might add). And mainstream America, of which I am supposed to assume the majority of voters are part of, will continue to watch their mindless entertainment on TV (including football, talk-show, soap operas, reality shows, and such drivel) and drinking their cheap pig swill beer, and eating their greaseball food. Or, they’ll sip scotch, as you say. While listening to Flush Turdball & Anthrax Coulter. Mindless robots. Just what Bush wants them to be. Contributing to the eventual enslavement of all humans by the illuminati.

Hey Traveler,
“How many heart attacks did I have when Regsan (sic) was president? Obviously none. But I sure cheered when that Hollywood goofball bastard croaked.

FYI. I did not like Kerry. But Bush is and was 100% wrong. Kerry was only 80% wrong. And we sure neeeded that 20%.

Have a nice Thanksgiving. Not that there is much to be thankfull for.

Posted by: Escobar at November 23, 2004 05:38 PM

Traveler,

Sorry, I forgot Edwards, as for the rest… Frist can win, Rice can’t.

Posted by: Beagle at November 23, 2004 05:43 PM

Beagle,
“It soon went to (what seems to be hate from the left)”
He’s not a leftist like I thought originally. He’s an anarchist! He hates everybody!
I have a newfound respect for liberals now that I know there are people even nuttier!
Seriously.

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 05:43 PM

I don’t have any trouble with Democrats looking for scapegoats. Republicans would be blaming Osama among others if our guy had lost.

What troubles me about the Dems is that they just don’t seem to understand that they did not win. They did not win the Electoral College; they did not win the popular vote; there was no implied triumph or moral victory.

It is really nobody’s fault. The Democrats ran a competent campaign, as did the Republicans. What is true in life is also true for political parties: when you fail, it may not be your fault but it is your problem. And the corollary: you can only change a bad situation by changing your own behavior. The strategy is to get up, dust yourself off and figure out how you screwed up. Democrats should be asking “What did WE do wrong?” not “Why did THEY beat us?” Those questions are the difference between losers and winners. As long as Democrats look to causes outside their control, their fates will remain outside their control

We Republicans should be doing something similar. We should be asking what we did right and how we could do better. There is no permanent victory in politics.

Posted by: jack at November 23, 2004 05:59 PM

Escobar,
“FYI. I did not like Kerry. But Bush is and was 100% wrong. Kerry was only 80% wrong.”

About what? I don’t think you understand the point of a debate. We make points and then we elaborate on them and present FACTS to back them up. Even Bush and Kerry could handle that! Although not very well admittedly…

“Have a nice Thanksgiving. Not that there is much to be thankfull for.”

Thanks I will! I have a lot to be thankful for. Me and the other 99.9% of Americans.
We are ALL thankful for life. We are ALL thankful for this country and the freedoms it offers. I personally am thankful to be able to support the people fighting to preserve out lives and freedoms.

Tell me, what would you have this country look like?
This should be interesting!

Oh, one more thing…
“Repugs are driving the gas guzzling SUV’s and huge pickups, and driving like rude assholes, I might add”

I’ve been all over the country and I’m here to tell you that the worst drivers, the absolute worst, are from Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states. I know I’m going to hear about this one, but I’m completely serious.

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 06:03 PM

I have always had respect for those on the left that are reasonable and able to debate issues.

I’m not sure what brought out the vile, anger of some here( someone saying they are happy Reagan died ?),I hope I didn’t say anything to fuel that kind of fire!

Posted by: Beagle at November 23, 2004 06:08 PM

Sonmeone up there sure has a lot of hate and bitterness . The only person it hurts is yourself and no one else . Let go of your hate . You are sounding like a child who did not get his way . I have to wonder if there is any maturity there with in you . Yes, and there assholes on the democrat side as well . It is rude when you think the majority of the American public are idiots . I have to say the only one who comes accross as a idiot is you spewing your hate . To cheer when someone dies is the most horrible thing anyone could say about someone else . He was someone who loved America and had family and friends who cared about him like you do about your family and friends . How would it make you feel to have someone say that about you when you die ? I would think that you would not want that . That is a bad heart condition . Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks . It says a lot about you as a person and your character . Hate can eat you alive . It just shows everyone wha has commented on this site to see your real character . Think about it and ponder it and ask yourself do you want people to remember a hateful old man ?

Posted by: Riley4 at November 23, 2004 06:37 PM

All,

We had nothing to do with Escobar’s anger except that we are conservative, although he seems to hate everyone else just as much. He obviously needs mental help. How else can you explain that much hate for everybody?
He referred to voters by saying, “I have no use whatsoever for an electorate of monkeys, except as rifle targets.” He speaks of large-scale civil war in America and shows absolutely no respect for human life.

He said of President Regan:
“I sure cheered when that Hollywood goofball bastard croaked.”

This is an unforgivable statement to make about anyone. How messed up do you have to be to say something like that about anybody?

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 06:45 PM

People that want to take GOD out of the pledge don’t seem to realize they are infringing on other’s rights.

The same could be said for putting a ban on gay marriage into the constitution. If there ever was a separation of church and state in this country, it got thrown out with an aborted baby’s bath water.

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2004 06:51 PM

TheTraveler, you don’t look so good in that Keller exchange. You dismiss her rant as bigoted but when anonymous coward twists her post to make your point, you applaud it. You even said it makes more sense. You might want to watch that.

As far as the rest of this thread: I have difficulty responding to sanctimonious preaching from the right about what Dems need to do. Is the Repub party becoming strategists for the Dems? Since when do you guys care about the Dem agenda? Why don’t you all shut up about what the Dems need to do to win.

Side note: The Dems will ruin themselves if they try to run Hillary in 08.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 23, 2004 06:53 PM

I forgot that “the Karma of the Universe” should straighten out all these messes we have gotten ourselves into…

Posted by: CJ at November 23, 2004 07:20 PM

Joseph,
“TheTraveler, you don’t look so good in that Keller exchange. You dismiss her rant as bigoted but when anonymous coward twists her post to make your point, you applaud it. You even said it makes more sense. You might want to watch that.”

You might be right. The second post did make more sense, though.

“I have difficulty responding to sanctimonious preaching from the right about what Dems need to do. Is the Repub party becoming strategists for the Dems? Since when do you guys care about the Dem agenda? Why don’t you all shut up about what the Dems need to do to win.”

Maybe because the republicans are the ones that know how to win? They realize that a dialog of differing viewpoints is healthy for the country, so they don’t want the Democrats to dissapear completely!
The Democrats can’t just say “we lost because they had the better political machine,” or, “they stole more votes than we did,” or “they turned out more of the (insert group) vote.” These are only parts of the problem. The biggest part of the problem is that the far left is controlling the party instead of the left-leaning mainstream Democrats.
Remember - the object of politics is to win votes and most of the voters are centerist.

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 07:22 PM

Joseph,

“As far as the rest of this thread: I have difficulty responding to sanctimonious preaching from the right about what Dems need to do. Is the Repub party becoming strategists for the Dems? Since when do you guys care about the Dem agenda? Why don’t you all shut up about what the Dems need to do to win.”

The Traveler is right.
This was meant to be a post for discussion. For trying to work together and finding common ground. Maybe even some solutions.

I never even thought about the actual disappearance of the Democratic Party.
I expect the Republican powers to screw up simply because they have the appearance of being more powerful.

Was I preaching?? I hope not. I never said I cared that much about the agenda of any particular party.

I was actually hoping some of us could come up with a candidate that would be acceptable to most of us.
Maybe get a head start on the next election.
Possibly get a President who can bring the country together.
Someone who would make a larger majority of us feel like winners - on both sides.

We have to be involved in bringing us together. I don’t see how an election in itself could ever really do that.

Escobar,
You are funny. When I drive down the road I figure it is the democrats that don’t have turn signals, cut me off, and run the red lights (You’d think they could see that RED light.)It is usually some shiny fast foreign car that is trying to get the jump on everyone else.
Sometimes I want to just drive over them in my big gas guzzlin’ SUV because I can, but I have more restraint than that.

Posted by: dawn at November 23, 2004 08:06 PM

“I never even thought about the actual disappearance of the Democratic Party.”

I said something to that effect. I was just trying to be humorous. Neither party is going away any time soon. But I do think the Democrats need to look inside for problems if they expect to regain ground.

“I expect the Republican powers to screw up simply because they have the appearance of being more powerful.”

I’m sure they will. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, after all. But I don’t think it will happen immediately.
The mid-terms, like in 2002, might be very telling about the future of both parties. They will both learn from what happens, and shape their ‘08 strategies accordingly.

“I was actually hoping some of us could come up with a candidate that would be acceptable to most of us.”

Hmm… I’m afraid I won’t be old enough to run until the 2016 election. Sorry to disappoint. ;-)

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 23, 2004 08:36 PM

Joe-
Failure to connect? Well give us Ohio’s electoral votes then. We only failed to connect to a hundred thousand people in one state in nation of almost three hundred million, with over a hundred million voting. Our failing, if it can be considered one, is that we don’t have a presidential candidate whose campaigners openly flout the separation between church and state by having evangelicals influence the voting habits of Americans.

Stephen, you still claim Kerry ran a great campaign, but was misquoted and mischaracterized by the great Republican machine. But even Democrats are faulting Kerry, and he deserves it. He ran on not being Bush, and when that stopped working, he pretended to be tough by repeating over and over how he would kill them terrorists.

I wouldn’t claim Kerry ran a great campaign. I’d say it was good. A lousy campaign would be like Mondale, or 1968. This was a damn Good campaign. A Democrat, post 9/11, challenging an incumbent wartime president with a vicious political consultant like Rove set against him. I can understand some might fault Kerry for the loss, but I think their view is both shortsighted and context poor. And no, I don’t claim Kerry was misquoted, I assert that as fact. Take a trip over to Cheney’s favorite site, and get a whiff of what your people shovelled about Kerry. It can’t discourage you now.

I think your view of Kerry as pretending to be tough is rather funny considering Bush’s biography. Even in the best possible case, the truth is that Kerry went, and Bush did not. Spin that as you will, you can’t change the president’s past.

Dawn-
You weren’t just repeating what Kerry said, you were making broad assumptions about Kerry’s character from that one statement. It is typical of what I’ve seen from your side on these issues, and as typical is the negative take on a Democrat’s character. Everytime, it’s something bad, something horrible, something that reveals great internal weakness, rarely anything complimentary.

I’m sick and tired of hearing that kind of crap based on ill-informed discussions of the most minute detail of my candidates lives. I know you’ll spin this into some kind of sour-grapes liberal irrationality, but there’s nothing to it than exhaustion anybody would feel with a bunch of smug gossip that smears the reputation of people we admire for partisan purposes.

As for God? Bless those that curse you. Be aware that when you became a Christian, that you did so taking own the risk that people would curse you, revile you, and disown you for that choice. Ours is not the worst time for Christians. Our religion has survived far worse.

I believe evolution is a true explanation of the world, with no need of any biblical text or tradition, any bogus mathematical trick to assert that it’s God’s work. I can believe so because I believe the spiritual truth is what matters. To me, it is enough to believe that God created us.

How God did that is beyond us, in my belief. I don’t think we can prove or examine God’s hand in things any more than a cartoon character on a page can do so for the writer who sketches him.

I believe evolution is a worldly truth, the truth of the nature we exist within. God is the truth of what exists outside that nature, beyond it, truth that intersects our reality in a way no instrument or human thought can nail down.

Escobar-
Don’t underestimate those “monkeys” or we Democrats. People are smarter than you think. Trouble is, Nobody knows everything, and information, knowledge and wisdom are not evenly distributed. Some people say everybody’s got their price, I say the currency of that price is often a matter of fact, narrative, and feeling. Consultants nowadays screw up because they don’t see the fields as dynamic, as changeable.

If I were to throw one critique in your direction, it’s that you have too much faith in the permanence of those you despise. I have no such faith that the Republicans will remain forever in power.

Jack-
Some Dems do, some don’t, but some like myself see our loss not in the bleak pessimism of a Bush defeat thwarted, but of one nearly achieved, with a regenerated, revived Democratic party behind it. I felt viscerally good about being a Democrat for the first time in a long time, and I think, a good look across the net should prove that. It’s the politicians and consultants doing the whole wailing and gnashing of teeth thing more than anything else. The rest of us Democrats, though sobered by Bush’s victory, are not crushed by it. We know we’re right, and we know our party has a future. Will the road ahead be tough? Well who knows the future. We’ll do what we must. Don’t count on a passive party anymore, though. The price of Bush’s vicious campaign will be steep, when it’s ultimately paid.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2004 09:58 PM

Escobar,

You’re a tonic for a late night, waking me up as i’m just about to nod off. You sound a lot like a maniacal Denis Leary, only on more coke. Is that the connection to the name Escobar? Keep up the gags, you’ll get your own TV show eventually, if there’s any justice in the world.

From one Pablo to another,

Pablo!

Pog mo thoin. ;-)

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 23, 2004 10:02 PM

Dawn:

We have to be involved in bringing us together. I don’t see how an election in itself could ever really do that.

…

When I drive down the road I figure it is the democrats that don’t have turn signals, cut me off, and run the red lights (You’d think they could see that RED light.)It is usually some shiny fast foreign car that is trying to get the jump on everyone else.
Sometimes I want to just drive over them in my big gas guzzlin’ SUV because I can, but I have more restraint than that.

Way to send mixed messages.

Posted by: Jarandhel at November 23, 2004 11:40 PM

Stephen:

Our failing, if it can be considered one, is that we don’t have a presidential candidate whose campaigners openly flout the separation between church and state by having evangelicals influence the voting habits of Americans.

If you really see evangelicals voting for a candidate of their choosing in a constitutionally proper manner as flouting the separation between church and state, then you are far more ignorant about the church/state separation issue than I ever would have guessed.

By your logic, the fact that Democrats openly woo the African American vote makes them racists, and the fact that they openly woo the lower income groups makes them classists.

This goes well beyond ignorance though. It goes well beyond it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 24, 2004 12:50 AM

As a third party supporter, I really wish Hillary would run in ‘08. Talk about your bumper crop of disaffected liberals..

Posted by: Josh at November 24, 2004 05:02 AM

the Democrats need to look inside for problems if they expect to regain ground.

No. Democratic values and goals convinced damned near half of all voters to vote for Kerry despite the fact that the country is at war in Iraq and against terrorism around the globe.

If you believed Bush was “resolute” and Kerry was a “flip-flopper”, then you’re ensconced in the problem.

Last February, when it became clear that Kerry would be the Democratic candidate, the GOP made a concerted push to define Kerry. Like a robot arm hammering out the meme on an assembly line, the GOP relentlessly stayed on message: Kerry is a flip-flopper.

No matter what the topic was, the GOP always spun it so that somehow Kerry flip-flopped on the issue - even if they had to make it up.

Damned near half the voters in the US had no problem voting for Democratic values. It’s our election tactics that need some work.

But thanks for all your concern. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at November 24, 2004 07:36 AM

AP,

And from the other side…

If you believed Bush was “lier” and Kerry was not a “flip-flopper”, then you’re ensconced in the problem.

Last February, when it became clear that Bush would be the Republican candidate, the left made a concerted push to define Bush. Like a robot arm hammering out the meme on an assembly line, the left relentlessly stayed on message: Bush is a lier.

No matter what the topic was, the left always spun it so that somehow Bush Lied about the issue - even if they had to make it up.

What you said is true, AP, but it works both ways.

Election tactics on BOTH SIDES need some work.

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 24, 2004 08:13 AM

Jarandhel,
It was a joke to lighten things up after a few not so nice posts. Funny. Ha Ha. In case you hadn’t noticed it was a response to one person -

Stephen,
I am not the only one who thinks Kerry was the wrong nominee (and a lot more things left unmentioned). If I were writing for the Blue column would you feel the same way?
If I comment on Kerry - one man - it means I am saying the same of all Democrats? I wouldn’t think so.

AP,
Claiming that almost half voted for ‘Democratic values’ seems to be making an assumption.
If you ‘believe’ the polls a whole lot of Kerry’s voters were not voting for him - if the vote was not for him but against Bush - how can you say it was for Democratic values?
I can assume this:
The votes were against Bush - the man. Not Bush the Party.
I guess the fact that Bush’s approval ratings are on the rise means nothing also. People must be lying to the pollsters. How can people who hated him enough to vote against him now say they approve?
Maybe a few of the ‘Kerry voters’ voted for him for no other reason than they believed he might do a better job in Iraq. They may have been ticked off about Iraq - mad at Bush - and that was a way to show it.
We have discussed before how a lot of people vote on one issue that is important to them.
I remember hearing - ‘If the issue is Iraq - Kerry wins.’ ‘If the issue is security - Bush wins.’
This could be why some people believe that Bush would have won by 60-40 or higher if it hadn’t been for Iraq.
That is why some of us believe that ‘06 and ‘08 will give a better indication of where people stand.

Posted by: dawn at November 24, 2004 08:27 AM

AP:

Democrats DO need to look at themselves and understand why the trend has been to NOT vote them into office. They have certainly remained viable, but its simple fact that they have lost ground in the House and Senate since 1992, and now have lost the White House twice. It’s a trend, but trends always have starting and ending points; if not, we’d all still be wearing oversized bell bottoms, afros,psychedelic colors and peace signs. (No offense intended to anyone who still is wearing such an outfit)

Its one of two things for the Dems, and I’ll ask you which you think it is, or to offer a third alternative.

A) Republicans distort the Democratic message, which is inherently good. If this is the case, then the Dems need to look inside and figure out how to better broadcast their inherently good message to the people.

B) The Democratic message is unclear or unappealing to the people In this case, the Dems need to look inside and determine precisely what the people don’t agree with or understand. I don’t believe they should change their core principles, but perhaps should consider changing the parts of the platform they are not wedded to. This is called moving to the center.

In either option, Dems should look at what they can do about it. The blame game doesnt work. The 90-92 Detroit Pistons were called a dirty team, because they played very rough. Yet they played within (for the most part) the rules the league had established. Other teams had to make changes in order to compete. Had they sat back and whined about how dirty the Pistons were, they’d never have made the necessary changes.

The same holds true for the Democratic Party today.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 24, 2004 09:16 AM

1978 Congress

Democrat Republican

292 143 House
61 38 Senate

2005 Congress

Democrat Republican

231 201 House
44 55 Senate

That’s minus 17 Senators and 91 Congressmen, plus Five out of Seven Presidential races during the period.

You can thank that former Democrat Ronald Reagan by the way.

Posted by: George at November 24, 2004 10:10 AM

jbod, the answer is A and just a little bit of B - the “unclear” part. :)

As I mentioned in a previous article, we need to clearly state our values and goals, and not let them be defined for us by our opponents. I’d love to see Pelosi or Kerry or somebody distill it all down to bullet-points and realistic, achievable goals.

Dawn, if Democratic values were anathema, no one would have voted for Kerry whether they thought Bush was the devil or not. I stand by my post.

Traveler, that’s what I’m getting at, the GOP obviously does it better. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at November 24, 2004 10:11 AM

To everybody,
The problem is not the foul Bush administration “per se”. The problem is that “so-called majority” of the American people, too many of them, are absolutely blind to the lies and deceit of said administration.

When you voted for Bush, did you think you were voting for clean air? A healthy economy? An honorable world image? Truth? Peace? An honest election? Wrong on all counts.

I do not hate everyone, as some of you insist. I am simply one who is thoroughly pissed off and tired of the hypocracy of the Republicans AND the Democrats. I am tired of the laziness and gullibility of the citizens. I am tired of the drivers I see on the road, speeding, no signals, running red lights, basically in total non-compliance with any common sense, let alone the law. And, I might add, the biggest, most obnoxious vehicles are the ones most prevalent on the driving-like-morons list, with their cute little “W-04” sticker on the back. But I digress.

I’m out of this argument. It’s become too bitter. But maybe you’ll understand now that some of us, maybe a lot of us, are really pissed. When physical push comes to shove, there’s going to be some pushing back.

I know some of you don’t understand Karma. That’s too bad. You would rather believe in a god, and religion. Fine. “The opiate of the people.” (Karl Marx) But Karma will catch up with all of us. All of us.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Posted by: Escobar at November 24, 2004 11:10 AM

All I can say:
LOL!
Maybe I’m his Karma. I seem to represent everything he hates!

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 24, 2004 12:09 PM

To all:

Its more than a bit ironic that Escobar is the one complaining about the comments in this thread getting to bitter. He is the one who has been the most bitter and the most complaining.

If he truly understands karma, he should be on the lookout the next time he crosses the street for some big ole SUV with a cute little “W-04” sticker on the back.

As for me, if he really does go “out of this argument” as he says he will, his comments will notbe missed.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 24, 2004 01:09 PM

Jarandhel, It was a joke to lighten things up after a few not so nice posts. Funny. Ha Ha. In case you hadn’t noticed it was a response to one person -

If you want to bring people together, I would suggest learning to lighten things up by laughing with the opposition, rather than at them.

Posted by: Jarandhel at November 24, 2004 02:34 PM

Jarandhel,

I guess … you didn’t read Escobar’s comments and anything anyone else had to say about them. I really didn’t see much to laugh at and most others in this thread did not either. If you notice the tone somewhat mellowed out.

You have apparently singled me out on this one. I can at least say I was not viscious in the comments I made.

I could have just removed the comments. I considered it. I could have just wiped out Escobar’s freedom of speech with one click of my mouse. How funny would that have been?

Posted by: dawn at November 24, 2004 07:28 PM

AP,

“As I mentioned in a previous article, we need to clearly state our values and goals, and not let them be defined for us by our opponents. I’d love to see Pelosi or Kerry or somebody distill it all down to bullet-points and realistic, achievable goals.

Dawn, if Democratic values were anathema, no one would have voted for Kerry whether they thought Bush was the devil or not. I stand by my post.”

You said it yourself ….

I listened and listened to Kerry and his reps. Every time someone was asked what Kerry (dems) would do they would basically tell how Bush screwed up and they could do it better.

I know someone who voted for Kerry just because she was pissed off about the overtime issue and that her SON was getting screwed because he makes $100,000+/yr.
She came running up to me one day and asked if I heard what Bush was going to do about the border and illegal immigrants. She said ‘What do you think about YOUR President now?’ I asked her if she knew how Kerry stood on the issue and she said ‘No’ while shrugging her shoulders and told me it didn’t matter because she was voting for Kerry anyway.

Call me crazy but I believe people would vote for Kerry JUST because they were mad at Bush.
Maybe they didn’t know anything about Kerry but assumed he couldn’t be all that bad. He has been a Senator for 20 years and the Democratic party has been around at least a couple more years than that.

Posted by: dawn at November 24, 2004 07:49 PM

AP,

I forgot to mention that she helped vote MY President in the first time.

Posted by: dawn at November 24, 2004 08:09 PM

Joe-

If you really see evangelicals voting for a candidate of their choosing in a constitutionally proper manner as flouting the separation between church and state, then you are far more ignorant about the church/state separation issue than I ever would have guessed.

Do I strike you as a particularly ignorant man? I should hope not. I recognize that it is the right of Churchgoers of any kind to vote as they choose. What is not so sacrosanct is political involvement on the organizational level, which is what I’m refering to. I mean, when Churches are passing out voting guides that effectively advocate one candidate over another, mostly conservatives, then I think there are serious questions as to whether Churches can maintain their tax-exempt status.

I think your party has done you the disservice of making this whole argument about Democrat evil versus Republican good, when in fact it’s about ethics, it’s about conflicts of interests, it’s about honesty and transparency in the political process, and ultimately, about keeping the public truce between the religion of those in power and those not intact.

I think politics is going to have a corrosive effect on evangelical and fundamentalist faiths, unfortunately. Nothing like earthly power to skew the aims of heavenly discourse.

In the meantime, I think the only thing we should ask ourselves about our platform is this: What do we believe? Then we should ask ourselves how we promote those ideas and make them the mainstream understanding. The Republican advantage is that they are marvellously good at creating a message and beating it until it’s almost deadhorse consensus.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have a different advantage: our policies are less counterintuitive. We talk about going directly after terrorists instead of some geopolitical jujitsu throw of viral democracy in the middle east. We have the facts on our side, while the Republicans have to fight, equivocate and rationalize every step of the way.

What’s more, Liberalism is a breath of fresh air for many Americans, who find the right of center media consensus a bit suffocating, especially in it’s fatalistic view on problems. Sooner or later things are going to get bad enought that people will demand action. We can legitimately go in and demand it right along with them.

Dawn-
The trouble is that the Republicans turn each and every comment Democrats make into epic examinations of the wrongness of the Democrats. Kerry expresses a reasonable opinion, and you turn it into a minutiae filled discussion on how Kerry can’t take responsibility for anything, as if you were his personal psychoanalyst and could read his very thoughts. Joe or Jack did the very same thing a while back, saying that Kerry was pretending to be tough in one part of his campaign, never entertaining the possibility he could be genuinely non-delicate in real life. For my money, I’d say I really do believe that Bush turned his life around, and I don’t trust allegations that he’s returned to substance abuse.

As for the matter of Democratic values- well, the people who voted for Kerry obviously didn’t have enough problems with him to make them choose a more conservative candidate. Besides, I think the myth of the weak candidate had a stake put in it fairly quickly after the first debate. 48% of the popular vote does not go to weak challengers

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 24, 2004 08:52 PM

Hey Escobar, if you hate mainstream America so much and the way the country is headed, then why don’t you leave? There are plenty of other countries out there that might not piss you off so much.

Posted by: sickofwhiners at November 24, 2004 10:31 PM

Every time someone was asked what Kerry (dems) would do they would basically tell how Bush screwed up and they could do it better.

That’s totally untrue. All you had to do was go to his website… Oh, that’s right, you didn’t trust his website, did you. :)

As for your friend, she may not have known Kerry’s policy on illegal immigration (I take it neither of you bothered to go to his website to find out), but she obviously didn’t think he was going to open the floodgates. It kinda proves my point that Democratic values aren’t considered evil, and therefore don’t need to be fundamentally altered or skewed to the right any more than they already are.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 25, 2004 07:41 AM

Hey wait a minute!! Dawn, you TOTALLY believe in Democratic values. I remember we had this conversation before. For some reason you just couldn’t bring yourself to believe that Kerry might actually mean what he says.

Oh, well… Your/Our loss. :(

Posted by: American Pundit at November 25, 2004 07:45 AM

AP,
I told my friend what Kerry planned - got it from his website … the one I looked at time and again. That’s when she shrugged her shoulders and didn’t care.
Maybe it is because neither party has big plans to fix the problem on the border.(Can’t do anything that may alienate my voters.)
Some are already claiming it will be ‘the issue’ next time around. That Hillary is setting herself up to be the winner on that one.
I want it to be the issue NOW.
I don’t know anyone who wants some WMD device slipping across the border. Do you?

You remember I have ‘democratic values’ but you won’t understand that I could not vote for Kerry because I think he is a complete ‘politician’.
Since I don’t vote party lines, and never have, like a lot of people do … and you know they do … Kerry wanted to do things that would not have been good for my family. I believe I told you that.
I don’t see the issues as the problem. It is the way they will be dealt with (or not dealt with).
Kerry tried to make everyone believe he could do what they wanted - how can anyone possibly do that?
Naming the issue or problem and explaining how exactly it will be dealt with would be nice to hear from any politician.
How many voters do you think logged right on to Kerry’s website when he said ‘Go to my website. The information is all there.’ ? I wanted to hear it from his own mouth, and I cannot possibly be the only one who felt that way.

Take the Health Care issue .. Democrats tried to say that these big lawsuits have very little, if any, impact on the costs. You may believe that, but I don’t. Paperwork … too much of it. Everything is done in megaquadruplicate. Deals between insurance companies and providers - too many of them. I know how much of a difference there is in the charges between an insurance company and someone who self-pays.

You can’t please all of the people all of the time … so we won’t do anything and hope the issue fixes itself or blows over.
The D.C. Motto.

Posted by: dawn at November 25, 2004 03:13 PM

Dawn, let me share with you an insight into why Bush might have won: he never stopped campaigning. He is not only a politician, he’s purely one. How long was he out there campaigning, even during the worst crises of his administration? How much did you see him doing actual policy as opposed to stumping for himself or another candidate, as in the 2002 elections.

Hell, one of his most criticized acts as president could well be seen as part of his political campaign: Mission Accomplished. I mean, what else was he trying to say? Why the footage of him landing on a carrier in a flightsuit, if he was only thanking the troops?

Unlike most political consultants, Karl Rove never left his president’s side, and if many of the presidents critics are right, especially Paul O’Neil and the former head of Bush’s faith-based initiative, then Bush made a great number of decision not on criteria of policy, but on political criteria.

That is why, even with the worst deficit ever, this president will not relent on taxes. He may say he’s not as poll addicted as his predecessor, but the fact is Rove polls constantly, and the president listens to what Rove tells him.

The complaint, as I’ve heard is that the Bush administration makes its decisions based on politics, and does not develop consistent policies. They keep things decentralized, and Bush doesn’t give feedback to his underlings. Only a few people get access to Bush, and he takes them pretty much on their word.

This is part of what scares people like me about this administration- few people are thinking big picture about what they’re doing, coordinating with others. It’s like having an engine without it’s parts together straight. Somethings going to jam, probably already has, and when enough strain is applied, the mechanisms of government will be ill equipped to address whatever crisis is causing the situation. If there is another 9/11 style event, do you really want that disfocused of an administration dealing with it?

Party discipline without policy discipline is like a gas pedal without a brake.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 25, 2004 08:17 PM

Democrats tried to say that these big lawsuits have very little, if any, impact on the costs. You may believe that, but I don’t.

Dawn, that’s based on an Office of Management and Budget study. It has nothing to do with belief. It’s a fact. The lawsuits account for one-half of one percent of healthcare costs. Period.

Regardless, if you saw the VP debate, you heard Kerry’s plan to deal with frivolous lawsuits.

Paperwork … too much of it. Everything is done in megaquadruplicate. Deals between insurance companies and providers - too many of them.

Ahh… Now your on the right track. Kerry’s healthcare plan dealt with those pretty effectly.

“While banks have cut their costs to less than a penny per transaction using computers and technology, a single transaction in health care costs as much as twelve to twenty-five dollars — and not a penny goes to care. Eliminating this inefficiency in our health system is… the only way to bring America’s health care into the twenty-first century.”

And, “John Kerry’s plan would require transparency rules for PBMs that do business with the Federal government to clearly show what savings they are receiving from the industry and from bulk purchasing.”

In “left coast” California, we applied anti-trust laws to insurance companies to stop them from colluding on prices, and premium rates dropped by 20%.

It’s all moot now, though. You’ll never see any reform now. :(

Posted by: American Pundit at November 26, 2004 07:26 AM

If there were WMD’s in Iraq, but they were smuggled out, like the President says, shouldn’t he be do all he can to prevent them from entering the USA like port and border security.

Posted by: warren at November 26, 2004 04:49 PM

When I die and go to heaven, I know that there will be more democrats than republicans. We don’t talk about how holy and Christian we are. We act it.

Posted by: Kathy at November 27, 2004 10:38 AM

Mr. Bush won it on morals eh…
Mr. Bush won it because of marrage eh..

Hogwash

The real reason Mr. Bush won, was that he frightened the public into voting for him. When you have Dick Chaney going around and saying, “If Kerry is elected, the terrorist will attack,” Then the only outcome would be a vote of fear.

You also had back woods pastors in Arkansas etc telling their flock that if Kerry were elected, he would take away their bibles. (Totally untrue)

It was fear that got Bush the vote. Fear. And nothing more.

Not Morals, Not Gay Marrage, Not Abortion, it was Fear.

Posted by: Magnum Serpentine at November 27, 2004 08:10 PM

You also had Catholic priests in the Atlanta suburbs telling their perishioners that if they vote for Kerry, they can no longer receive Communion - and that Democrats all want to kill babies and old people.

Most of the Republicans in the congregation (the vast majority) gave the priest a standing ovation. Only a few privately expressed concern afterwards.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 28, 2004 07:44 AM

Could everyone please stop claiming the ‘fear factor’ was only used by one side.
The Republicans are NOT going to take S.S. checks away from old people and they were not going to stop blacks from voting. Why would they? They actually thought they were going to get a much higher percentage than they ended up with.
I can tell you that what Cheney said went in one ear and out the other for me. Unless law enforcement and intelligence can get it right 100% of the time it didn’t matter who won.
That does not explain why Bush gained ground in all categories either.
Kerry was not ‘Anybody but Bush’ for me and at least 3 million others.
When I said Kerry is a ‘politician’ I meant that he is very good at covering all positions. I didn’t just hear that and believe it either. He knows how to talk the talk.
Maybe he just wasn’t convincing enough to more voters and that’s all there is to it.
You Democrats will have another chance in ‘08.

AP,
You forgot the extra costs from the way doctors cover their butts now. There is no getting around added cost from malpractice insurance either. When you talk about just the payouts from lawsuits the cost does not seem to be that much.
Maybe I got confused, I thought Bush said something about the paperwork also.
Either way you look at it. It is a much bigger problem than either party or the President can fix alone.
Until our representatives get off their asses on both sides, we will have the same problems for years to come.
Not just health insurance problems and costs either.

Posted by: dawn at November 28, 2004 08:43 PM

Until our representatives get off their asses on both sides, we will have the same problems for years to come. Not just health insurance problems and costs either.

I can’t argue with that. :)

I can point out that by re-electing Bush, we sent our government the message that we don’t really care about healthcare costs, or any other domestic issue other than more tax cuts.

As for the “extra costs”, here’s a General Accounting Office study. The conclusion: nobody knows what the added costs are.

But here’s a practical, market-based solution for curtailing the number of malpractice lawsuits:

Five percent of all doctors are responsible for more than half of all malpractice payouts. If we knew which doctors were serial malpracticers, we wouldn’t go to them, thus avoiding another malpractice suit.

Unfortunately Congress, under pressure from the AMA, declared that information private.

If you want to do something about the situation - because let’s face it, Bush doesn’t have any incentive to solve this problem - write your representatives and tell them you want doctor’s legal records made public so you can make an informed choice and avoid the bad docs.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 29, 2004 01:27 AM

“When I die and go to heaven, I know that there will be more democrats than republicans. We don’t talk about how holy and Christian we are. We act it.”

Oh how so very true.
Clinton was the best christian ever.
I mean he “acted” like the best christian.
Hey, wait a minute, aren’t christians evil?
The way the left has been whining about them electing Bush again and everything, oh, thats right, their ignorant rednecks, thats right.
LOL!!!

Posted by: kctim at November 30, 2004 05:42 PM