I started to deleted this then I figured, I’d deny so many people a laugh. From “Jeff” in our comments section:
Hey Julie, you are a terrorist. Our devil leader has stolen that term and remade its newspeak definition to now be anyone who might stand in the way of his grand plan to eliminate all life on Earth. The greatest terrorist of all time. His current body count is on par with the tsunami’s, but he’s got all the short future of humanity to beat that. You are just another of his brainwashed storm trooper cheerleaders. I hope you enjoy the fruits you will reap. Thanks for helping to sow the end of us all. I’ll see you in hell.
This is why they keep losing elections. Forget the fact they don’t really give a shit about their common man… A large hunk of the left is just insane.
George Bush has a master plan to eliminate all life on earth? Then how will Halliburton make any money?
Here’s another example: Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC.
paul:
When you are faced with concrete examples to back-up my assertion you reply simply “you’re generalizing.”
Actually, this is one of the first posts where you are providing any specifics. Thanks for providing examples.
Howard Dean was a mad man.
so what is it about dean that you disagree with most, or that makes you characterize him as a madman? seriously i’d like to know…and dont worry im not baiting you…im not some big howard dean fan or anything…
Millions of Dems believe Bush lied about WMD but they ALSO believe that when Clinton said the exact same thing he was telling the truth. (that’s insane)
Well, the WMD arent there. Did Bush lie about them? Well, that depends on whether he knew the truth at the time or not. Was there some amount of misinformation? Yes, but that doesnt make George Bush the mastermind behind it all. Somebody was lying, or at least was spreading false information. And about Clinton: wasnt he in charge when that pharmacutical plant was bombed? Bad decisions happen across the board.
This single post from Jeff does not, in and of itself, prove my point… It is merely a perfect icon of what is wrong with the party and why the mainstream of America no longer votes for them.
I doubt that Jeff is such a perfect icon. Again, that would be like saying that Ann Coulter or Michael Savage is a perfect icon for the conservative side. Jeff’s argument is hardly typical or representative of 48 percent of American voters. You know that. Most people fall in the middle somewhere. Have you looked at a county by county map of the election results? That gives a much better picture than the simplistic red/blue state map. There’s alot in between, alot of purple.
Millions of Dems believe Gore won Florida… Hell millions of Dems believe Kerry won Ohio! (these folks are, at best, delusional)
Contesting election results doesnt mean that people are insane Paul. Why would you say that? Hey, if they think that something went wrong, then its their right to look into it. You label people as insane for that, or delusional at best? Why? What if you felt the same about an election, what if you felt it was tampered with? Would you be insane if you contested the results? Free and fair elections, thats what we’re all about here right?
By the way, I’m not a democrat. Just so you know.
actually, this is one of the first posts where you are providing any specifics. Thanks for providing examples.
Heavy Sigh. I just re-quoted myself from this very thread!
====
so what is it about dean that you disagree with most, or that makes you characterize him as a madman?
Well let’s see… There’s the time he passionately stood in front of a crowd and proudly declared himself to be a metrosexual — only to admit after the speech to a reporter that he had no idea what the term meant… Did I mention he was running for President at the time?
Or the time he pissed off the entire south by telling them to quit voting based on ” “guns, gays and God.” — on the basis that the first and second amendments were not legitimate campaign issues.
Did I mention he was running for President at the time?
Or the time he went on Canadian T.V. and bashed the people of Iowa (who hold the first caucus BTW) praised George Bush and insulted Al Gore…. Did I mention he was running for President as a democrat at the time?
Now mind you, this is just the things I remember from BEFORE the Dean Scream. Would any of this behavior make YOU trust him with the Red Button????? (those were for Sam)
The guy was a known loony tune long before the public melt down. (I bet I could google up a few more too.)
====
Nice dodge on the WMD issue. But you failed. Do you think “Bush Lied” but Clinton told the truth? — If you do, then you’re part of the problem.
====
Jeff’s argument is hardly typical or representative of 48 percent of American voters
I’ve never said that and in fact, I’ve contradicted that about 10 times…. Either you are having a problem yourself with reality or you are lying.
====
Contesting election results doesnt mean that people are insane Paul
I never said it did. Believing that Al Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida or believing the Kerry got more votes in OHIO is to believe something that is demonstrably untrue.
All the liberals kept saying “What will happen when the media does the recount and it turns out we put the wrong man in office?”… WELL GUESS WHAT RA– They did the damn recount and Bush got MORE votes in the recount than the original count.
The Supreme Court ruled that what counted as a vote in one county of a state had to counted as a vote in another part of the state. ie: You could not count dimples as votes in one county and the infamous hanging chads as a vote in another county in the same state. Further, the Supremes ruled that you could not change the rules of the election AFTER the election was over. (what a whacky idea that was huh?)
NOW– IF you believe that the Supreme Court “Stole” the election or that Bush was “selected” by the court then you sir are a stalk raving mad man.
=========
OK ra- I’ve given you example after example. You have replied that I’ve generalized about half the population. You have refused to get your facts straight about what I have said and you have refused to accept that a large number of people on the left are delusional.
I also asked you if the people who believe all this stuff are nutz and you did a breathtaking job not answering that question…
Your sly defense lends me to believe that the reason you are disagreeing, is that my comments strike too close to home.
So let me spell it out for you.
IF YOU WANT YOUR PARTY TO WIN you will have accept that a large hunk of the left is loony tunes and try to figure out how to minimize their exposure.
Once again, I genuinely hope you don’t believe me… The more often you guys hold up Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Whoopi Goldberg as being “The Heart and Soul of America” the more people vote Republican.
Whether you like to believe me or not.
What’s that I hear? Is it r.a., pwned, in D-minor? Why yes, yes I think it is.
Weren’t there stories about Dean on the floor of his office curled up in a fetal position? What was that about?
Paul,
First of all, you did repost that…I went back and looked and I missed that. Shit.
Like I said before, I am no big Howard Dean fan. Basically you were saying that a large portion of Dems are insane because they supported Dean, and now you have provided your evidence of why you believe Dean is insane, and also then, his supporters.
So now I know where your opinion comes from. Thats all.
To me, this would be like taking a selection of Bush quotes, or mistakes, and then saying that Bush is insane based on those examples, and all of his supporters along with him. But how accurate is that?
I guess I’m tired of the divide man, but I dont know if that matters. People on both sides just want to be pissed off and hate each other. Great.
I was asking for specifics because conservatives and liberals alike fling around a bunch of generalities that mean very little to me.
Nice dodge on the WMD issue. But you failed. Do you think “Bush Lied” but Clinton told the truth? — If you do, then you’re part of the problem.
Hmmm…wasnt meaning to dodge it. I’ll say it straight out: I dont side with Clinton over Bush. Clinton was bombing Iraq as well, and putting forth all the same shit, which has turned out to be just as wrong. I see that I could have made that more clear. I cant really say that I think Bush lied one way or another. Do you know for sure? It seems to me that he may have been acting according to the intelligence that he had. After reading the 9/11 report it was clear that Bush wasnt all that gung ho about going into Iraq from the start, he needed some convincing. Paul, I dont know WHO lied, or who put forth false information, but it was sure promulgated like they knew what they were talking about. It turns out that wasnt the case. I dont blame it all on Bush by any means.
Short answer: I am not employing a double standard.
I’ve never said that and in fact, I’ve contradicted that about 10 times…. Either you are having a problem yourself with reality or you are lying.
previous post:
It is merely a perfect icon of what is wrong with the party and why the mainstream of America no longer votes for them.
Ok. You’re saying that Jeff is whats wrong with the party, and the reason why “main stream” America doesnt vote for Dems. Bush won by what, 5 percentage points? Not really a landslide, but certainly a victory. My point is that a lot of people DID vote Democrat, almost half of the voters, putting them right in “mainstream” America.
A good portion of voters did vote Democratic, so I dont know what you’re saying. If the party was really filled with people who thought like that (Jeff) I doubt they would have received as many votes as they did.
Its not like the Dem ticket is some little fringe party like the Greens, etc. It was nearly a split again.
Elections: To me, it seems that some people are hanging on to something that didnt happen, which I dont think is necessarily productive. But still, I wouldnt call them insane for it.
NOW– IF you believe that the Supreme Court “Stole” the election or that Bush was “selected” by the court then you sir are a stalk raving mad man.
Hahaha. I dont remember saying that I believed that anywhere. You just wanted to type “stark raving mad man” didnt you? I could be mad, but its not because of that!
OK ra- I’ve given you example after example. You have replied that I’ve generalized about half the population. You have refused to get your facts straight about what I have said and you have refused to accept that a large number of people on the left are delusional.
Ok ok. Thanks for the examples. You have generalized about the population, but thats okay. Saying that “a large number of people on the left is delusional” IS a generalization in itself.
Look, I hear people on both sides who say the same thing…the names and details are different, but you would be shocked as to how similar each side sounds. Both sides basically say the other is composed of psychopaths. Sometimes I think that maybe Americans could actually cool off on each other a bit, but maybe I’M DELUSIONAL FOR THINKING THAT!
I also asked you if the people who believe all this stuff are nutz and you did a breathtaking job not answering that question…
Breathtaking? Wow. I should go back and read that. I think that all this crap is sensationalized beyond belief, and that Americans arent all a bunch of loonies. I know really really liberal types and REALLY conservative types, and I wouldnt call either of them insane. They have ideas that I dont always agree with, but I think their mental faculties are basically working as well as the next person…
Once again, I genuinely hope you don’t believe me… The more often you guys hold up Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Whoopi Goldberg as being “The Heart and Soul of America” the more people vote Republican.
You may be right there, but I cant speak for Whoopi, as I dont know her politics too well. I dont pay attention to very many hollywood types overall.
Hey, I have a question for you…I have mentioned Coulter a few times. Do conservatives generally accept her views as viable political analysis?
Moore, Franken, and all that crew are basically entertainment IMO. they are there to stir up arguments more than to inform or really get anything done. its depressing that alot of people consider moore/coulter/franken/savage to be useful in forming political opinions…
Okay. there we are. I like to debate Paul, but I hope that you dont think that I was personally attacking you. The hardest thing is talking about all of this without getting all pissed off. Anyway, I’m not trying to piss you off, I’m just trying to see what you think, and why.
Oh, one more time, I’m not a democrat.
-RA the raving mad mad, no wait, the stark raving mad man.
What’s that I hear? Is it r.a., pwned, in D-minor? Why yes, yes I think it is.
“pwned” ???
RA — chill out man, there are plenty of people here who understand what you are saying. Both sides DO point at the other and declare them to be lunatics. I think the point that Paul is trying to make is that the really kooky Bush-haters seem to be enjoying more mainstream acceptance in their party than the kooky Clinton haters did in theirs in the 90’s — and even then you’re mostly talking about the Buchannan and Falwell types who either left the party or were booted out. Any way you cut it, believing that Bush wants to kill us all is irrational. That man needs help.
Back on the original topic, the crazy assed comment Paul put up in this post…. another moonbat who doesn’t know what “terrorism” is.
I mean, hell, lets grant, for the moment and for the sake of argument, that W *is* capital ‘E’ evil, and wants to kill everyone in the world.
That still doesn’t make him a terrorist. Terrorism is attacking non-military targets because you are unable to defeat a foe in conventional warfare.
Seems to me, that just like “facist”, the word “terrorist” is devoid of any meaning for the left besides “someone I don’t like”. You can’t even have intelligent discussion with someone when they refuse to use the same referents.
Hey, I have a question for you…I have mentioned Coulter a few times. Do conservatives generally accept her views as viable political analysis?
I don’t consider myself a conservative or to speak for them, but I’ll answer anyway: Sure, why not? She is undoutedly intelligent and articulate. She pokes fun at the left just to see you guys sputter, jump around, and yell “how dare she!” That is for pure entertainment, my friend.
Ok ok. Thanks for the examples. You have generalized about the population, but thats okay. Saying that “a large number of people on the left is delusional” IS a generalization in itself.
Well golly ra then the only way you will ever admit that a hunk of the left is mad is for me to get everyone of them psychologically evaluated and give you a numerical breakdown. Nonsense.
I can say that (for example) a large hunk of the population in this country is christian and even without numbers to back me, that statement is obviously accurate.
I have provided you with enough examples to make the statement that a large hunk of the left is delusional.
=========
Hey, I have a question for you…I have mentioned Coulter a few times. Do conservatives generally accept her views as viable political analysis?
Since I actually answer people’s questions, I’ll tell you.
I guess, to be Clintonesque, it depends on what your definition of “generally accept her views” is.
“Generally speaking” she is conservative and “generally speaking” so are most conservatives. (I really should admit that I don’t read or listen to her enough to actually answer.) But I would guess most conservatives would accept the bulk of her ideals if not her delivery. (I must admit I’ve only read about 3 of her columns.)
But let me spin it a different way– I bet if you took voters who were apolitical and gave them Coulter’s views and Whoopi Goldbergs views, Coulter would win by several miles.
=======
AND btw when one of the kids uses a new slang terms I don’t know, I google “term glossary” and get my answer.
…Suffice it to say, that wasn’t a compliment of your debating skills.
I think the point that Paul is trying to make is that the really kooky Bush-haters seem to be enjoying [much, much, much -ed] more mainstream acceptance in their party than the kooky Clinton haters did in theirs in the 90’s — and even then you’re mostly talking about the Buchannan and Falwell types who either left the party or were booted out.
Not a bad way to say it. (I only had to add a few adjectives)
He doesn’t want to kill them all….the women he wants to keep so that he can RAPE THEM! Cameron Diaz told me so.
Paul, every one of your posts convinces me more and more that you are a closed minded idiot.
r.a., I don’t know why you were civil to Paul (or any of the other KOOKS!), even I I read your post I knew that they would just trash you for your civility. To them, being polite is a sign of weakness to exploit and make fun of.
julie, what is it about the way you think of Coulter makes it any more legitimate than, say, the way a progressive might think about Al Franken?
Paul:
Well golly ra then the only way you will ever admit that a hunk of the left is mad is for me to get everyone of them psychologically evaluated and give you a numerical breakdown. Nonsense.
and this too:
I’m just not very interested in stereotyping large groups of people based on personal opinion. I dont see what purpose is served.
I could go around repeating what many liberals say about conservatives, but I dont. I dont think its a useful approach to political discourse to keep slinging stereotypes around.
Since I actually answer people’s questions, I’ll tell you.
I apologize for not answering your question. I personally didnt see the point, however.
I believe that I answered your other questions, right?
Feel free to ask more…
Paul, I’m just trying to get you to look at some of this differently. Thats all.
Thanks for your views about Coulter. I personally think that someone like George Will might have a better sense of conservative views, and that Coulter provides a fairly angry, hate ridden viewpoint.
r.a.
TIM:
RA — chill out man, there are plenty of people here who understand what you are saying. Both sides DO point at the other and declare them to be lunatics.
Thanks for taking the time to say that. Thats my main point.
I think the point that Paul is trying to make is that the really kooky Bush-haters seem to be enjoying more mainstream acceptance in their party than the kooky Clinton haters did in theirs in the 90’s — and even then you’re mostly talking about the Buchannan and Falwell types who either left the party or were booted out.
I understood his point from the beginning. I dont see the use of it, however. To me, it seems counterproductive to focus on that.
Any way you cut it, believing that Bush wants to kill us all is irrational. That man needs help.
Couldnt agree more…
Hey Tim thanks for answering me like I’m not the enemy.
Julie:
[regarding Ann Coulter]
I don’t consider myself a conservative or to speak for them, but I’ll answer anyway: Sure, why not? She is undoutedly intelligent and articulate. She pokes fun at the left just to see you guys sputter, jump around, and yell “how dare she!” That is for pure entertainment, my friend.
Understood. Sometimes she can be a bit inhumane in her writings, and I was wondering what people thought about that. I dont put much stock in her viewpoint, as she is more concerned about making waves than making good arguments, from what I have read.
Paul: there is a stray “and this too” in the post that shoudnt be there. typo.
CCRyder: I don’t read Franken, I don’t watch Franken, and I don’t know or care what the left thinks about him. They are entitled to their own opinions.
r.a.: Coulter Provides a Fairly Angry, Hate Ridden Viewpoint. . . .Sometimes She Can Be a Bit Inhumane in Her Writings,
What’s So Hateful about Her Viewpoint? What’s so inhumane about her writings?
I Dont Put Much Stock in Her Viewpoint,
You’re entitled.
As She Is More Concerned about Making Waves than Making Good Arguments, from What I Have Read.
Oh, from what little I have heard and read, I think she makes very good arguments. She is also very good at tweaking people’s noses. For example, I saw her on some program where she was asked a question, but as soon as she started answering, the host and another guest deliberately talked over her so she could not be heard. [Very old tactic.]
So, when the other guest was asked a question, she talked right over him and the host, saying you did it to me and now I am doing it to you, if you want me to stop then you give me a chance to answer a question without you talking over me. They wouln’t stop and neither would she. And as they got angrier and angrier, she just laughed and laughed at them. I love stuff like that!
Coulter at her best is hilarious. At her worst tedious. Like Franken, she rides that edge. Franken can be funny sometimes too.
I think all this screaming is going on because most people realize the situation is exactly *opposite* of what the comment writer (who may have been a plant, because that’s just *too* funny) describes.
Far from the end of the world being ‘nigh, it’s pretty obvious that the world is rapidly (and I think this is a great thing) becoming Americaland, and that freaks some people out. Americaland is peaceful, capitalistic, democratic, contentedly middle-class, sometimes clever but usually boring. Even China is slowly but surely lumbering thisaway. The Iranian students want what we have and the mullahs are old and smell their own death in the air. The Jan. 30 elections in Iraq will happen (there will be murder and it will be very hard) and everything will eventually work out there. American values are winning all over the world (heard of Ukraine?). And for some people – people who escaped from the suburbs, mostly – that is a nightmare from the deepest pit of hell. So they scream, kind of incoherently, exhausted, out-of-ideas, absurd even to themselves: it’s the end of the world. I just tell them “you wish!!! (bwa-ha-ha-ha)!”
RA, I answered you like you aren’t the enemy because … you aren’t. It’s increasingly rare to find people who might not agree with me, but who still will engage in polite debate.
That’s something that is really missing the last couple of years. Intelligent people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions. When people start looking at different information entirely, (like, say, when the media is incompetent, misleading, or just plain dishonest — there are examples on both sides) then the disagreements will inevitably get ugly as they are now. This is not good. You cannot reason with someone who honestly thinks you want to shoot their dog, rape their wife, and mow down all the rainforests to make “God hates fags” flyers. You can’t argue with people off the deep end. I don’t think Paul will deny that there are also crazies on the right, too, but the point to all this is that I don’t recall seeing any of them seated with Bush 41 and the Governator at the GOP convention. (and no, I’m not a Republican)
Most people who don’t agree with me politically are decent people. Some who might happen to agree with me on some things are rotten people. Every group has its assholes.
I read something that was quoted on Tim Blair’s site not too long ago. After some French aid workers in Iraq were killed, a few people (of the right leaning variety) approved. A lefty blogger or commenter had an epiphany and said afterwards, “these people aren’t just pro-war, they are on the other side!” It’s a reversal of something I’ve said about the despicable parts of the far left many times myself. It made me think.
That commenter was so close to articulating something important — that there is a line between disagreeing with someone politically (no matter how strongly) and genuinely wishing death upon them. Or, for that matter, actually helping it along. No matter how many other things that person and I may disagree on (including whether our current war is even justified), at the end of the day we are on the same side. We agree on one thing, the most important thing of all: that what was done to those French aid workers was wrong.
There are many people, inlcuding Americans, who honestly want us to lose this war, and who cheer when US soldiers, marines, and airmen — my fomer brothers in arms — are killed. I have nothing to say to them, they are my enemy. I will do whatever I lawfully and ethically can to piss in their cheerios. They are my enemy because they think it’s OK to shoot school children, decapitate aid workers, and blow up buses full of old ladies as long as you blow up the “right” people, profess the right ideology, or hate Bush.
And unless I’m mistaken, I’m pretty sure that RA dislikes those people as much as I do. Everything else is just details.
ra said:
“I understood his point from the beginning. I dont see the use of it, however. To me, it seems counterproductive to focus on that”
OF COURSE you see it counterproductive to focus on the fact that a large hunk of the left is insane. That makes your side look bad!
Instead you will stand there (sit there) and make wonderfully powerful counter arguments like “You’re generalizing.”
If I said it was warm during the summer you’d say “You’re generalizing.” as if that negated my point.
SIGH
OK RA live in a fantasy land where every Dems is sane and rational…As I’ve said many times, I hope you do…
I’ll be happy to meet you at the ballot box… But if you do answer me again, I wish you would give me one straight answer. (which you won’t)
If this is not a major reason the left is losing power, why are they?
Assuming you answer, which you won’t, it should be most interesting.
I like Ann Coulter. I defend Ann Coulter. I think she is the conservative counterpart to Michael Moore, only she’s better looking, more intelligent, and is not a factually challenged hypocritical lying swine.
Seriously, there are a number of anti-Moore sites that have deconstructed pretty much his entire life’s work into a catalogue of lies, distortions, manipulative camera tricks, and sleazily dishonest editing. There are a number of anti-Coulter sites, too, but other than the usual bleating about what an awful person she is, their attempts at deconstruction are mighty thin gruel by comparison. Best I could find was some guy named “scoobie” who claimed to have debunked one whole chapter of one of her books, I think it was ‘Treason.’ I suppose there may be other sites, but I haven’t found them yet.
Need foot to waist gear in here; so much bullshit.
Many of you are new; read the arhives and post like ONCE not several times.
Why are all the idiots coming out of the woodwork right now?
Cindy
For the record I havent been defending, or even praising Michael Moore. I personally dont care for his approach any more than I care for Ann Coulter’s approach.
I agree with people that Coulter’s views may be funny, just like her counterparts on the left may be funny and entertaining.
However, I think that those types of writers are capitalizing on the division in this country, and making a good chunk of money at our expense. In the process, I dont think they are helping to solve any issues by any means.
My friend Paul said this:
If this is not a major reason the left is losing power, why are they?
Because they do not provide a strong alternative the the GOP. Their messages are often just watered down versions of what Republicans are saying, i.e. John Kerry.
They buy into the bullshit and help make certain issues a bigger deal than they are.
They’re just as partisan as anyone else. They are helping to further the divisive message.
The basic answer is that the Democratic Party has been a fairly shitty alternative to the Republican Party. They had no great answers by any means. They pretty much say the same things, with minor variations here and there on some issue or another. Basically its the same message, its just weaker and pretty confused. If you want more detail I can get into it.
I dont think calling them all insane really sheds much light on why the left has lost support. It’s fun to say, sure, but thats about it.
How’s that for an answer Paul?
Tim: nice post. And you’re right, I do dislike those same people that you are talking about, and for the same reasons. Many people get caught up in their ideologies and eventually become the enemy that they profess to be against.
Seriously what you have written is nice to hear. After this last election the red state vs. blue state idea really went crazy, with each side thinking that the other is SO DIFFERENT, and SO INSANE. I don’t buy it. We may disagree, but we are all Americans, and have a mutual goal which is making things in this country as good as we can. Sounds a little sappy, but thats the best way I can say it right now.
Societies always have two aspects, the more conservative and the more dynamic. One isnt any better than the other, and both are REALLY important for proper balance. Its the whole yin and yang bit. Of course thats all just my opinion…
(I’m not going to quote you for time’s sake)
Perhaps you are correct. No, lemme say this… I’m sure that is part of it… but it goes deeper than that.
If the only people the Dems were losing were people in the middle, your theory could more readily be accepted as being the exclusive answer. But we routinely see life-long Dems giving up on the Dem party and turning Rep. In my state, (LA) we had about 70% Dem voter registration just a decade ago. Now it is about 52-48. (I think)
Something is making people actively change party… You just don’t change your political affiliation on alternative Thursdays. (I know I’m generalizing but…) For this many people to take the trouble to change parties SOMETHING is pissing them off.
Of it were only a case of the Dem party lacking alternatives right now, people would stay Dems and vote Rep. (common in the South) No, the Dems are pissing people off.
My take.
P
I think the Dems are losing votes for both of those reasons — watered down positions copied from the GOP and a very vocal fringe on the left that disgusts a lot of long time Dem voters. These two things are not mutally exclusive when you have a candidate who gives 2 or 3 different positions to as many audiences in a single day. Exhibit A: All the lame-assed “I’m reporting for duty” symbolism at the DNC, while ‘Minuteman’ Moore is sitting in a seat of honor.
How stupid do they think we are?
My grandmother voted Democrat all her life until this election. Why? Because Kerry didn’t do enough to distance himself from the “America is evil and our soldiers deserve to die” fringe on the left. That won’t fly with the generation that fought in WWII and Korea. Her husband is a retired career servicemember, and the Kerry campaign just didn’t cut it. I had discussions with her, pre-2001, about her support for the Democrats. She was convinced our nation would pull together in a time of war. This past year showed her what I was unable to convince her of for so long.
Also, most of my younger peers at my college became disillsioned with the Kerry campaign. Why? I’ll give you a perfect example of why: the Democratic base was told by all manner of organizations that the GOP was wrong to oppose gay marriage. They painted them as bigots. Campuses were full of discussions of why Bush had to get the boot, and accusations of homophobia were right up there on the list. And then Kerry said his position on gay marriage was exactly the same as Bush’s. (his words, not mine). It doesn’t matter what you think about the issue, it’s pretty obvious that this is lame.
About half my peers were, if not Kerry supporters, at least Bush haters. And most of that half stayed home on November 2nd.
So, did the Democrats come up with a lame platform that was poorly differentiated from the GOP? Yes, they did, and this demoralized the Dems. But it also appeared to the opposition to be a sham platform because the Dems didn’t disavow the loonies. This energized the opposition. Game over, drive home safely.
Paul wrote:
“Something is making people actively change party… You just don’t change your political affiliation on alternative Thursdays. (I know I’m generalizing but…) For this many people to take the trouble to change parties SOMETHING is pissing them off.”
Thats true Paul, very true. There is definitely something pushing people away. Good point. I think that the Michael Moore types have alot to do with that. Personally I dont know what the guy is trying to do, outside of capitalizing on his notoriety while he can, and making lots of loot for himself.
Tim wrote:
“Campuses were full of discussions of why Bush had to get the boot, and accusations of homophobia were right up there on the list. And then Kerry said his position on gay marriage was exactly the same as Bush’s.”
Right. And that same “homophobic” label was never cast upon Kerry the way that it was with Bush. I know.
“But it also appeared to the opposition to be a sham platform because the Dems didn’t disavow the loonies.”
Right. The Dems didnt actively separate themselves…and they hoped that the association would somehow bring attention, and it did, but not the kind they were hoping for.
I have to admit I skipped the last 1/3 of this thread, but I think I’m safe in pointing this out…
Haven’t any of you considered that this Demonrat vs. Republicon ‘competition’ is simply a smokescreen to keep the sheeple ignorant of our Oligarchy’s real objectives?
If you want a clue as to what they’re up to, just examine the issues facing the world today that NEITHER side will touch – and ask yourself why those issues are either paid lip service, or simply ignored.
Here’s three for starters:
1. Illegal immigration.
2. Government waste, fraud and abuse.
3. Education.
In the meantime, the government just gets bigger… And bigger… And bigger…
-Dave