02 Nov 2004 | p8 said...

In which states can you vote three times in a row?

02 Nov 2004 | Chris Vincent said...

That brought a smile to my face.

02 Nov 2004 | David Schontzler said...

Is what I don't get is why people show up and wait in line for hours (potentially) when they can fill out an absentee ballot a few days ahead of time and skip the lines all together for the cost of a stamp.

02 Nov 2004 | indi said...

David, there's comfort in numbers :-)

VEVO! Vote early, vote often!

03 Nov 2004 | ek said...

I wonder if the Dems will finally shut up now about Bush not being elected president and about Nader stealing the 2000 election.

Over 50% of the popular vote going for Bush — sounds pretty definitive, no matter what the electoral numbers end up being.

Gore lost. Kerry has, save for the mother of all miracles, lost. The Dems need to stop bitching about everyone else and take a good, long look in the mirror.

To not be able to beat W given his track record is absolutely pathetic. The problem isn't Bush or the Republicans, it's that the Democratic party has nothing to offer except for the fact that they're not Bush or the Republicans.

And sack that loser Terry McAuliff already — talk about a track record of failure. The DNC is broke and it's time to fix it.

03 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"To not be able to beat W given his track record is absolutely pathetic. The problem isn't Bush or the Republicans, it's that the Democratic party has nothing to offer except for the fact that they're not Bush or the Republicans."

While I believe the Dems have every right to make sure that every vote is accounted for properly, this is on the money all right. Clinton would've eviscerated Bush.

03 Nov 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

I'm not so sure. I think this election demonstrates that America is ideologically divided. This feels like the electoral equivalent of a civil war.

03 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I've never been so disappointed with an election result in all my life.

Let's hope for the best.

Hillary '08 ??

03 Nov 2004 | Carl said...

BUSH BREAKS ALL-TIME POPULAR VOTE TOTAL, SURPASSING REAGAN...

The problem isn't Bush or the Republicans, it's that the Democratic party has nothing to offer except for the fact that they're not Bush or the Republicans.

You can say that again. No new ideas. Really, no new ideas. Just more of the same. Any democrat could have run last night. It's just the same tired old platform. One day they'll realize they need a bold new vision, not just the familiar refrain (which clearly the people don't believe).

03 Nov 2004 | Bob said...

So as a nation we approve of:

a growing deficit
high unemployment
a meaningless war with high civilian casualties
poor health care
and complete disregard for the Constitution

Four more years indeed.

03 Nov 2004 | JHC!!! said...

This is what what happens when you pick some ultra-rich, monotoned, new englander as your prize chicken... keep playing safe DNC, cos this is what you're gonna get every fucking time. During the primaries, I met not one person who wanted Kerry in office. Not over the likes of Edwards, Kuc or Dean... How did he get the job?

03 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I tried. I tried to excite the Diaper Dandies to vote, but they did not.

Way to go, idealistic do-nothings. Don't rant with your mouth full.

Rats. My children will be paying down this deficit for no end in sight. The deficit will, in the long run, do more damage than Al Quaida.

Thanks, Mister "Conservative" President.

03 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"BUSH BREAKS ALL-TIME POPULAR VOTE TOTAL, SURPASSING REAGAN..."

Eh? Is this a joke I've missed??

http://www.presidentsusa.net/popularvote.html

03 Nov 2004 | JHC!!!! said...

Interesting find Don. Why am I not surprised...

03 Nov 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

I don't think this has anything to do with the strength or weakness of the Democrats' platform or their candidate. I think the only candidate who could have beaten Bush in this election is Jesus. Welcome to the Divided States of America.

03 Nov 2004 | Carl said...

I don't think this has anything to do with the strength or weakness of the Democrats' platform or their candidate. I think the only candidate who could have beaten Bush in this election is Jesus.

Sad excuse. Look, the Dems lost. When you lose you have to blame yourself. If you keep tossing blame elsewhere then you'll continue to lose. Sorry dems, but excuses and get out the vote concerts don't win elections.

03 Nov 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

So using that same logic you would conclude that Tom Waits is a poor musician and songwriter because he doesn't sell as many albums as Britney Spears. Not true: it's just that Britney happens to appeal to the thundering herd of airheaded sheep.

All I'm saying is that the Democrats could have put forward the best candidate and the best message, and Bush would have won anyway because a majority of Americans seem to be ideologically aligned with him. I'm not saying that as an excuse for the Democrats; I'm not even a registered Democrat. I'm just observing that it looks like there's a very strong ideological split in America that has almost evenly divided the country.

03 Nov 2004 | AZ said...

I think the only candidate who could have beaten Bush in this election is Jesus.

I think John McCain could have beaten Bush in the primaries if incumbants would have to go through the primary to get renominated.

03 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

" It's just the same tired old platform. One day they'll realize they need a bold new vision, not just the familiar refrain"

Uh...carl...how do you think Bush got elected? By repeating the same tired old refrain.

I woke up very dismayed this morning. I'm not really sure what to make of our country these days.

"I think the only candidate who could have beaten Bush in this election is Jesus."

Even then, Bush would have scraped the barrel and found faults in him to convince the idiot masses that Jesus was a bad choice. ;o)

"Sorry dems, but excuses and get out the vote concerts don't win elections."

Obviously, they don't. What does is slathering on rhetoric. Creating smear campaigns. Oversimpifying your message. Pandering to the masses. Creating fake enemies. Never reconsidering a position. Pretend God is on your side. Concentrating on non-issues. Spreading hate. Etc.

The only party that seems to put up with that low-ball tactic is Bushco. Bushco is now a party. They know how to market to the ingorant. I'll give them credit for that.

03 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

03 Nov 2004 | brock said...

YAY! all that wasted effort at lowercase tee finally paid off!

03 Nov 2004 | Carl said...

So using that same logic you would conclude that Tom Waits is a poor musician and songwriter because he doesn't sell as many albums as Britney Spears. Not true: it's just that Britney happens to appeal to the thundering herd of airheaded sheep.

None of this matters. What matters is that the voting public prefers Bush over Kerry. Excuses and metaphors abound. The public picked Bush. That's what America wants and that's what America gets. That's our deal. Kerry and the Dems couldn't close the deal. That is simply their fault, no one elses.

03 Nov 2004 | JHC!!! said...

YAY! all that wasted effort at lowercase tee finally paid off! Hehe, that made me laugh on this very somber morning...

03 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

What I meant to say was ... anyone else remember how giddy and charged-up the Democrats were with Howard Dean about, oh, say, just one year ago? Then, the "machine" stepped in and put an end to that and made sure Kerry was nominated. The excitement left.

Sad, but true.

I want radical, radical change.

Meanwhile, equal rights continue to take a beating.

03 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

ARGH!!

I meant this link.

03 Nov 2004 | Urbanchords said...

I'm just observing that it looks like there's a very strong ideological split in America that has almost evenly divided the country.

After reviewing CNN's map, to me it seems that the country is starting to divide from urban to sub-urban/rural. You can look at the state maps by county and most of the large metro areas are for Kerry and outlying areas are for Bush.

The problem isn't Bush or the Republicans, it's that the Democratic party has nothing to offer except for the fact that they're not Bush or the Republicans.

As a registered Democrat, I believe this. The DNC did exactly want the GOP wanted them to do. Statically an incumbent President is re-elected based on the economy, yet the DNC didn't talk about unemployment or the sad state of the economy. Nor the rising cost of healthcare. The DNC let the GOP set the agenda for the campaign, not running their own. IMO, this campaign seems to revolve around Iraq, yet the exit polls said that wasn't their number one concern.

03 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

"Kerry and the Dems couldn't close the deal. That is simply their fault, no one elses."

No, that's not the Dems fault. The Dems don't stoop to please the igonorant. They don't make issues out of Gay marriage. They don't oversimplify issues like abortion and terrorism. They don't use God as a tool.

I wouldn't WANT any other party using those tactics...even though those are the tactics that work.

"I want radical, radical change."

You're never going to get that here, Don. Wal-Mart America doesn't like change. And they certainly don't like anything that isn't middle-class, white and heterosexual. ;o)

"After reviewing CNN's map, to me it seems that the country is starting to divide from urban to sub-urban/rural. "

Starting? It's a pretty clear division right now.

My only theory is that folks that actually have to talk to their neighbors are the ones that actually are cogniscant of other people. As you head into the burbs with the tall fences and then into rural america with acerage separating neighbors, the whole concept of 'other people' dissappears. As such, they tend to become isolationist in nature and feel that it's there way or no way.

yet the DNC didn't talk about unemployment or the sad state of the economy. Nor the rising cost of healthcare.

I'm in a swing state, and that's ALL I heard them talk about.

The bottom line is that the democratic party was going to do little to sway folks that were voting for Bush because he's a fag hating anti-abortion, born-again-christian. You just can't do much to sway folks like that.

03 Nov 2004 | brian breslin said...

this has utterly disappointed me, i mean so many people keep voting on single issues, and now the supreme court is gonna be refilled with ultra-right-wing conservatives now that Duh-bya gets 4 new justices. it seems like we are moving backwards.

I agree that the fanfare surrounding dean was all but gone lately. I had been all for dean, and then when he was no longer in the picture, i sort of supported kerry by default, but by then it seemed the dnc wasn't looking for supporters, just those who disliked bush. maybe we should look to change the system to a multi-party system, i.e. like 5 or 6 parties, then the evangelicals can just get their own party, and the republicans could theoretically go back to being "fiscal conservatives" and so on and so forth.

03 Nov 2004 | indi said...

"My only theory is ..."

One theory is that a much higher concentration of people on welfare live in the big cities and just don't want their teat taken away. The dems always scare them with that threat if the republicans win, so they vote democratic. The Dems also scare seniors with the specter of losing their medicare benefits and social security. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I find it interesting how many here refer to "the masses" that are swayed by dirty tricks, etc. Don't forget the masses are actually made up of individuals like us and not like us. So really, we are the masses. We shouldn't lose sight of that and mentally segregate ourselves into some sort of outside observers not affected by propaganda from both sides.

03 Nov 2004 | RS said...

I want radical, radical change.

The most radical thing you can do is stop seeing voters on the other side as evil or stupid.

The people who voted for Bush have a different set of priorities, and if we want this country to improve, we all have to make a serious effort to _empathize_ with each other and _understand_ each other, instead of hurling insults and us/them diatribes.

03 Nov 2004 | shawn said...

They don't use God as a tool.

If that's the case, what do you call Kerry's appearance in a church this past Sunday quoting scripture? If that's not using God as a last minute appeal for votes, I'm not sure what is.

Here'e the quote from the Washington Post:
"Kerry never mentioned his opponent by name in his remarks from the pulpit at Shiloh Baptist Church here, but the references were unmistakable, as he quoted scriptures and recited "Amazing Grace.""

Link to Article

03 Nov 2004 | Stomaphagus said...

I voted Kerry, but believed Bush would win. This election was about fear. Fear of homosexuals, terrorists, and change. Whoever was most convincing in his arguments to thwart all three would win.

S.

03 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Al Qaeda has grown in the last 4 years. The environment might be irreversibly damaged. My brother could very easily end up in a draft. Women will likely lose their right to an abortion. Gays were told they had no rights as couples. It was a really sad day. I have heard people say that now it will be clear who is to blame if Iraq and the economy continue to go bad. That is little consolation to me when troops are dying and my brother could be next. The harm to our enviornment already has been huge and affects everyones' health. Older people are telling me it is just another 4 years, but it is 4 years that can do a huge amount of damage.

03 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

maybe we should look to change the system to a multi-party system

Maybe? ;o)

One theory is that a much higher concentration of people on welfare live in the big cities and just don't want their teat taken away.

Indi, folks like you are what make me feel ashamed to be an American today.

I don't know why I even bother to rebut your ignorant comment, but here goes:

- being on welfare is not a luxury
- poor people tend not to vote
- the social welfare teat is the smallest of the government teats to suck on. Take farm subsidies for instance.

The Dems also scare seniors with the specter of losing their medicare benefits and social security.

At least these are real issue worthy of fear. Look at what Bush was using...Gay marriage? Stem Cell Research?

The people who voted for Bush have a different set of priorities, and if we want this country to improve, we all have to make a serious effort to _empathize_ with each other and _understand_ each other, instead of hurling insults and us/them diatribes.

I try. I really really try. But it's impossible for me to understand someone that votes based on something like gay marriage. They're not stupid, per se, but they're extremely ignorant. That's not meant as an insult...just a fact of life.

If that's the case, what do you call Kerry's appearance in a church this past Sunday quoting scripture? If that's not using God as a last minute appeal for votes, I'm not sure what is.

That's exactly what it is. Kerry had to stoop at that last minute BECAUSE of the Bushco tactics. You can't beat Bushco using logic, unfortunately.

03 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Well, at least the Bush presidency can take credit for changing me from a card-carrying Conservative to a slightly left-of-center Centrist. I'm so sick of the "Well, I got mine ..." mentality.

03 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

For many reasons, I'm deciding whether I'm permanently done with politics (I gave it up as a career a while back). A lot of what I'm reading here is simply confirming my inclination in that direction. But, two people/posts deserve calling out.

EK is right. The Democratic Party is fundamentally broken. Quick, explain what the GOP stands for. Pretty easy to do. Now do the same for the Democrats. I can't do it. And I used to work for the bloody party.

RS, you're exactly right. While there is a lot of idiocy in the electorate, it goes both ways. The message I took from last night is that the majority - a thin one, but a majority nonetheless - has vastly different priorities than I do. That's the way it is, for better or for worse.

No one will ever win with an implicit message of "You dumb sheep, get some sense and vote for me or my platform."

03 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

No one will ever win with an implicit message of "You dumb sheep, get some sense and vote for me or my platform."

That's how Bush won, is it not?

03 Nov 2004 | JF said...

That's how Bush won, is it not?

Actually, no. He won because individuals shared his positions and perspectives and voted for him. People who you don't agree with can make up their own minds just like you can.

03 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

People who you don't agree with can make up their own minds just like you can.

Certainly. But the tactic Bush used is exactly what OOSS mentioned. Ie: terrorism is evil, vote for me. Gay marriage is evil, vote for me. Etc. Bush knew how to herd the sheep quite well...it is definitely his (or at least Rove's) strong point.

Were there intelligent, deep thinking, careful people that voted for Bush? Of course. Were there shallow thinking, gut reacting, fearful folks that voted for bush on single non-issues? Plenty.

03 Nov 2004 | JF said...

Were there intelligent, deep thinking, careful people that voted for Bush? Of course. Were there shallow thinking, gut reacting, fearful folks that voted for bush on single non-issues? Plenty.

Plenty of people vote for the left on one issue: Legal abortion. Are they shallow thinking, gut reacting, fearful folks too? Or is that issue just really really important to them in the same way that being against gay marriage is for others?

Everyone has their issues. Everyone has their own reasons for voting (be it one issue or a combination of 50 issues). They aren't any better or worse than your issues, they are simply issues that are important to them.

There are no rules about what should influence your vote. We all get to decide for ourselves.

03 Nov 2004 | diamond dave said...

Man, I bet Bill Moyers is spinning in his grave right now...

03 Nov 2004 | ek said...

To quote the guy who got this ball rolling for the Republicans: "There you go again."

The folks on the left who continue to insist on blaming everyone else and calling anyone who doesn't agree with them dumb or ignorant or hicks or all of the above are really just remarkable.

So you really still don't get it? Look in the mirror guys: you are the problem with the left in America today, not Bush or the people in the Heartland who keep this country running.

The left seems to be mired in a loop of chronic denial. Keep this up and we really will have a one party system made up of conservative Republicans and moderate Republicans.

03 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

I think Bush won this election on cultural issues, energising his core vote with "god, guns, and gays" as I've heard it put. He was weak on the economy and vulnerable on Iraq/terrorism, but Karl Rove knew that in order to match the Dem's registration drive he had to deliver the Christian Right. Which he has done with admirable skill.

But how long will this work? Is it something of a con-trick? The last time the Republicans made such a fuss of religion was under Reagan, who promised Falwell and his supporters that in return for their votes he would deliver prayer in school and conservative judges in the Supreme Court. Sound familiar? Did either happen then?

Maybe having a committed religious man in power will affect things in this area (although we all know that it ain't really Bush making the decisions). At some point the GOP will have to deliver on these cultural promises that they're making, but the tension here is obvious: libertarianism doesn't exactly sit well with religiosity.

Add in a riven country, an economy that worries many economists, and a war that will have to be a success, and Bush has his work cut out in the next four years.

03 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"So you really still don't get it? Look in the mirror guys: you are the problem with the left in America today, not Bush or the people in the Heartland who keep this country running.

The left seems to be mired in a loop of chronic denial. Keep this up and we really will have a one party system made up of conservative Republicans and moderate Republicans."

You're dead right. You know what, I suspect that if the 'liberal intelligensia' (first time I've ever used that term!) had made more of an effort to offer options to the 'dumb sheep' in the heartlands when things started going wrong for them (because many of those people are struggling with the free-market economies our politicians all favour) then maybe they wouldn't be voting en bloc for the Republicans. Did all that time spent discussing identity politics and post-modernism leave a vacuum now filled with the ideas of the cultural right?

After all, why the fuck else do poor farmers from Idaho or wherever vote for an administration hell bent of serving the richest?

03 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

"Because Bush won't let them faggots get married!"

(apologies)

Cultural values run deep. People forget to think and go with "What they know".

Critical thinking? Don't make me laugh.

03 Nov 2004 | Ritz said...

It makes me laugh up when I hear people say, "It should be like this... everyone else needs to (insert gruesome death)." I can't think of a quicker way to getted tagged as an idiot in my book, and my book is almost FULL!

Gay-marriage for example, someone thinking that it is wrong and shouldn't happen doesn't mean they are stupid. The idea that the gov't CAN stop it is stupid.

I also don't think we're anymore divided then any other election. The problem is that we are all becoming so much more one-sided about things. Sad... Very sad... Because nothing ever gets done when nobody is willing to listen and learn.

03 Nov 2004 | ek said...

I really think you're wrong on this one Don. My gut on this is that a lot of Bush voters were, to a certain extent, torn, recognizing that his stewardship of the economy and the war have not been wonderful successes. But they made the decision that his positions on the value issues that run to the roots of how they define themselves as human beings were more important.

After all, as repugnant as I find the all-too-commonly-held position on gay marriage that you used as an illustration, it's certainly a clearly understandable position. Contrast that with Kerry's position on the issue, which can be boiled down to: "Well, I don't support gay marriage, but I do support civil unions."

But what does that really mean? What does the man really believe? And who is going to rally around such a wishy-washy position?

The Dems need to define what it is that they believe and define those things in CLEAR terms, understanding that they can't satisfy everyone all of the time. What the Republicans have proven is that you can win by satisfying some of the people all of the time on a set of core issues vs. the Democrats' position of trying to please everyone all of the time, but never truly satisfying anyone on any one issue.

No, that's not the Dems fault. The Dems don't stoop to please the igonorant. They don't make issues out of Gay marriage. They don't oversimplify issues like abortion and terrorism. They don't use God as a tool.

Speaking to issues that people care about in a clear way is not stooping to please the ignorant, it's effective communication.

What's complicated about abortion or equal rights for homosexuals? A woman must have sovereignty over her own body. Everyone, no matter their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation must have equal rights under the law. Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?

Does that mean you might not win this year's election? Yes, but stand for that and work towards moving people to your position. It's what the Republicans did after Barry Goldwater went down in flames in 1964 and they've been reaping the benefits at all levels of government since the early 80s.

As for terrorism, Bush and Kerry seemed to be reading from the same playbook on that topic, so I don't know where you're coming from on that one.

03 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

ek -- point taken. Thanks.

03 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"It's what the Republicans did after Barry Goldwater went down in flames in 1964 and they've been reaping the benefits at all levels of government since the early 80s."

You're scarily on the ball tonight, ek!

The Democrats have to start thinking now about how to counter the cultural weight of the Republicans. Sure, a charismatic candidate who knows what levers to pull to get elected will always stand a good chance (Clinton), but the ideological base of the Dems is perilously flimsy. And with the Presidency, Congress, Senate, Supreme Court *and* now a clearer mandate opposing them they face a struggle to define themselves in any way other than as opportunistic survivors.

A Bush implostion is, I think, actually quite likely (for a number of reasons). But then Bush was ripe for the picking this election. If they don't get themselves in shape soon, the Dems will surrender any lasting power for a long time.

03 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Plenty of people vote for the left on one issue: Legal abortion. Are they shallow thinking, gut reacting, fearful folks too?

Yes.

I think Bush won this election on cultural issues, energising his core vote with "god, guns, and gays" as I've heard it put.

Yes.

I suspect that if the 'liberal intelligensia' (first time I've ever used that term!) had made more of an effort to offer options to the 'dumb sheep' in the heartlands when things started going wrong for them

What's the alternative option you can give a person who is voting because they think Bush is absolutely right about gays being bad?
What's the alternative option you can give a person who is voting because they think Iraq has something to do with terrorism? What's the alternative option you can give a person who thinks anyone that is pro-choice eats babies?

Now, I agree that the Dems could have given the sane republicans some altenratives. And, to be fair, it sounds like a fair share of republicans went with Kerry this time.

EK thinks the left is bashing republicans. They're not. They're bashing blind Bush followers. If there is one good thing about Bush being elected it's that we might begin to see a split in the republican party.

After all, why the fuck else do poor farmers from Idaho or wherever vote for an administration hell bent of serving the richest?

Specifically, Bush managed to convince that a repeal of the death tax was for them. That and rural farmers tend to be good church goers.

After all, as repugnant as I find the all-too-commonly-held position on gay marriage that you used as an illustration, it's certainly a clearly understandable position.

Please help me understand it.

"Well, I don't support gay marriage, but I do support civil unions." But what does that really mean? What does the man really believe? And who is going to rally around such a wishy-washy position?

Ugh. If you find that wishy-washy, then you're not much of a thinker.

It's pretty obvious what he's saying. He doesn't believe in calling it marriage, as it upsets too many folk's traditions. He clearly believe that gay couples should still be entitled to the same legal rights.

Listening to the radio all day with call-ins from people as to why they voted for Bush, I hear a lot of repetition of the phrase 'I voted for bush because I find his morals like mine and he was clear about them'.

That's thinly veiled bigotry. Morals shouldn't be formed from simplistic quotes from the bible. And people shouldn't vote based on such simple-minded rhetoric. But, alas, they do.

The Dems need to define what it is that they believe and define those things in CLEAR terms, understanding that they can't satisfy everyone all of the time. What the Republicans have proven is that you can win by satisfying some of the people all of the time on a set of core issues vs. the Democrats' position of trying to please everyone all of the time, but never truly satisfying anyone on any one issue.

I can agree with you on that one. Bushco kept to a very simple, basic set of repetitive phrases. The dems, specifically Kerry, see the world as much more complex.

I say blame the population of middle america for succumbing to such simplistic lines of thinking. You say blame the dems for not accomodoating such simplistic lines of thinking. They're both valid sides to take.

What's complicated about abortion or equal rights for homosexuals?

Abortion is an insanely complex issue. There's the rights of the uborn. There's defining what a child is. There's the rights of the mother. There's the rights of the father. There's the rights of the parents. There's the issue of cloning. Stem cell research. There's the issue of WHY people have abortions. There's the issue of giving people real alternatives.

To pick on this one subject. Anti-abortion folks tend to also be anti-welfare and anti-social programs. The issue isn't abortion, this issue is *why* people resort to abortions. The abortion issue, itself, it really just a red herring.

What's complicated about gay-rights? Nothing at all. Yet the republicans try to make it an issue. They take the non-issue (gay rights) and someone turn it into a justification for changing the consititution and take a highly complex issue (abortion) and turn kerry into a baby eater.

As for terrorism, Bush and Kerry seemed to be reading from the same playbook on that topic, so I don't know where you're coming from on that one.

I listened enough to both candidates to see that it's not the same playbook. Perhaps the same sport, but not the same playbook.

03 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Yeesh...that was a long winded response. Apologies. Give me a day or two calm down. ;o)

EK...I actually agree with your more than that last reply implies. It's an issue of details...not the overall argument.

03 Nov 2004 | ek said...

Ugh, like I said a long time ago Darrel, you are the problem. You, better than anyone else I've ever seen or heard express his or her views (more than Al Franken even!), encapsulate the reason for the decline of the left in America.

Go ahead and keep calling everyone else stupid or ignorant or overly simplistic — maybe you'll eventually rival the Red Sox's losing streak.

The sad thing is that you're an almost perfect mirror of the very people you deride — you just can't seem to see it.

03 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Ugh, like I said a long time ago Darrel, you are the problem. You, better than anyone else I've ever seen or heard express his or her views (more than Al Franken even!), encapsulate the reason for the decline of the left in America.

What decline? As far as I can tell 49% of the voters still are on the left.

The sad thing is that you're an almost perfect mirror of the very people you deride you just can't seem to see it.

And, as I've pointed out before, you're often just a dick in these forums--resorting to name calling when you're too tired to debate points on here anymore.

03 Nov 2004 | adam said...

http://www.cafepress.com/48percent

adam

03 Nov 2004 | adam said...

oops - with the link fixed.

check this out - stuff for the anti-bush crowd

03 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

No one will ever win with an implicit message of "You dumb sheep, get some sense and vote for me or my platform."

That's how Bush won, is it not?

No. Not even close. He won by saying, "Here's what I believe and what I think. If you agree, come vote for me. If you don't, I don't care."

The man is incredibly anti-intellectual (as his party, as is, frankly, most of his country). You can't be anti-intellectual and at the same time tell everyone they're just too stupid to understand why they should vote for you.

I can't tell you how many people I know who supported Bush said they did so not because they agreed with him, but because of that "here's what I believe, and I'm sticking to it" attitude.

And, as much as the left hates to admit it, many - arguably most - Americans agree with conservative positions. It's a conservative country. Always has been (de Tocqueville noted it all the way back in the early 19th century) and it likely always will be. There have been only a couple truly non-conservative eras in American history, and they were brought about either by force of incredible personality (think Teddy Roosevelt) or incredible calamity (think the Great Depression).

The left does have a problem with thinking everyone else is stupid and not recognizing that people do have their reasons for thinking differently, even if you don't agree with those reasons. You have to meet people on their terms in order to reach them. Oddly enough, people don't respond well to messages of "you're just too dumb to get it." They tend to not like you when you do that.

The left needs to do two things to ever have any remote chance of succeeding. 1) Admit that this is not a liberal country or a progressive country, and we just need to be more forceful on that account and the people will follow us. It didn't work for the Progressives 100 years ago (until elements of progressivism got co-opted by TR), and it's definitely not going to work now.

2) Stop being the nerdy smart kid in high school who tried to convince everyone they should like him just becuase he's so smart. That's the way the Democrats have come off for a while. It's annoying. It's why Americans haven't warmed up to any national Democratic figure aside from Bill Clinton in at least a generation.

The message is clear: A majority of Americans is not buying what the left is selling. THe answer to that is not to blame your customers for being stupid. It's to change your product. The posters here get that concept quite well when it comes to designing online experiences and doing business in the Internet world. Why that lesson seems to be lost when it comes to politics is beyond me. Blaming your customers gets you nowhere except out of business, whether your customers are book shoppers or voters.

03 Nov 2004 | ek said...

Man, One of several Steves, you really nailed it, at least imho. Your last point tying what we're talking about here into what we do as designers was absolutely beautiful — it showed how simple this really is.

To Darrel, uh, name calling...me?

And it's not very nice to use dead people's names in vain — Richard Nixon (given your high standards of discourse, I was assuming he's who you meant by 'dick') may have been a failure as president, but he deserves some respect.

As for debating, I guess you debate in a form that's foreign to me. Can you explain to me how calling anyone who doesn't hold to your views dumb or ignorant or overly simplistic is good debating form?

As for my last post, I'm sorry if it came off as name calling, but I really sincerely believe and mean it. Your inability to see that you live by the same fundamentalist world view of the people you hold in such low esteem is troubling to me as a human being and I was trying, in my own limited way, to help. Take it for whatever you think it's worth.

03 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

OOOS, I agree.

You have to meet people on their terms in order to reach them.

Well, I'm trying. The gay marriage issue is one that I've just been upset about.

Here in MN, when we had 'debate' last year, our senator that was for banning it was using the argument that gay marriage leads to pedophila and bestiality. That's not an exaggeration. That was the argument.

I'm really struggling to find a common ground there for discussion in that type of atmosphere.

Again, republicans aren't stupid. People that voted for Bush based on some of these one-issue non-issues are just ingorant of the big picture.

A majority of Americans is not buying what the left is selling. THe answer to that is not to blame your customers for being stupid. It's to change your product.

That just means more crappy, yet sellable product. I know brittney spears is what the public wants, but I sure hope Tom Waits doesn't start making Pepsi commercials.

03 Nov 2004 | Levi said...

Guys stop the sour grapes. Face it - you got your rears handed to you last night.

It's pathetic to see how you label anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, sheep, hick, Etc. Have you ever considered that everyone has their own opinon and right to express their opinon with votes? What you saw last night was your ideology sliding furthur into the minority. Just accept it with dignity.

03 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

The biggest problem I see is the DNC is afraid of being liberal. Fuck, stand up, be counted and say yeah I'm fucking liberal, why the fuck aren't you? Here's what I'm for and why. Dems have let Reps dictate what liberal means. I'm liberal, here's what I'm for:
Education as a top priority, not bottom of the list
Balanced budget
Affordable healthcare, not governtment care
Environmental responsibilty, smart energy, not simply more
National security
Equal rights for ALL citizens, gay, straight, purple, pink
Media diversity
Securing Social Security, not privatizing it to more Ken Lays
Equitable, graduated taxes
Good pay for Armed Forces
No pre-emption without actual proof. No pictures of random buildings that COULD be used for this or tubes that COULD be used for that. There's a reason we had to go it alone in Iraq people!

Don't be afraid of the label. Stand up, say who you are, and if that makes you a liberal, so be it.

03 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Levi. Let's be clear about one thing. Denying gays equal rights makes that person a bigot. Its the definition of the word. You can disagree with someone's choice, but you have no right (in my view) to create legislation to strip them of their rights. Period.

03 Nov 2004 | Levi said...

Steve: You nailed it man.

Darrel: Just stop. You're embarrasing yourself. Go home and lick your wounds.

03 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Can you explain to me how calling anyone who doesn't hold to your views dumb or ignorant or overly simplistic is good debating form?

Hold on...who have I called names (other than you)? Calling someone ignorant isn't name calling. It means they're not fully aware of the issue.

You say calling someone that votes to ban gay marriage ingorant on the issue the wrong thing to do. People that vote on that are fundamentalist in nature. They're voting based on some written religious doctrine, or based on fear. I have yet to hear *any* other reason for this.

Now, calling a person voting for bush because he hate fags ingorant does *not* mean I'm calling republicans stupid.

Take it for whatever you think it's worth.

It's easy for both of us to name-call online. As I always say, I'm sure it'd be a different conversation over beers. ;o)

As for being fundamental, in which way am I being fundamental in nature? I really am interesting in knowing how you're perceiving my arguments.

03 Nov 2004 | Levi said...

sloan:

Bigot:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I think that applys to calling someone less intelegent than yourself just because they disagree with you.

The issue of gy marriage is far more complicated than you would care to acknowledge. It reaches down into the deepest convictions of many people's souls. Saying someone is stupid because they can't in good concience support gy marriage - that's Bigotry.

03 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

It's pathetic to see how you label anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, sheep, hick, Etc.

It's pathetic that people keep saying this. We're not labeling those that disagree with us any of those terms. We're labeling a specific subset of the republican party...those that decided to vote for Mr. Bush based on religious doctrine or nationalistic machoism, ignorant of broader issues. Ingorance != stupid.

03 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

I think that applys to calling someone less intelegent than yourself just because they disagree with you.

Intolerance of homosexuals is bigotry. Intolerance of those that are intolerant of homosexsuals is bigotry too, I guess. But there are huge differences between the two. ;o)

The issue of gy marriage is far more complicated than you would care to acknowledge.

It's not. Gays are people. Sexual orientation is biological. Gay people would like to be equal in this country. The only argument for actively denying these people the potential opportunity to be equals is based on religious fundamentalism. We're still arguing creationism vs. evolution in this country. The rest of the world has managed to get beyond these silly issues. Why haven't we?

03 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Levi, I never said calling someone that disagrees with you stupid, wasn't in itself stupid. What is the complication of the gay marriage issue you think makes it not so clear? The amendment Bush tried to pass prevented marriage and dissolved all rights and protections given in civil unions as well. If the government is providing legal rights based on marriage it should be allowed by anyone. Personally, I think the government has no business sanctioning ANY marriage and should only do civil unions and leave marriage up to religions and other non-government institutions. But as it is, it is unconstitutional to ban one group of people from rights that all others have.

03 Nov 2004 | Levi said...

What is the complication of the gy marriage issue you think makes it not so clear?

I don't think this can be discussed with someone who does not hold a belief in something higher than man's intellect. I'm not saying that to be dismissive or insulting but just trust me on this one - for a lot of people (myself included) it's very complicated. The fact is that the holy books of at least three major religions (Islam, Christianity and Judiasm) condemn such relations. For the person who doesn't give much priority to religion it's not a big deal and maybe just enforces the reasons for their lack of religion - but for the people who put their religion above all else it's a very big and complicated issue.

Personally, I think the government has no business sanctioning ANY marriage and should only do civil unions and leave marriage up to religions and other non-government institutions. But as it is, it is unconstitutional to ban one group of people from rights that all others have.

Makes sense. You wouldn't happen to be Libertarian would you?

03 Nov 2004 | indi said...

Darrell, contrast the following statement

"And, as I've pointed out before, you're often just a dick in these forums--resorting to name calling when you're too tired to debate points on here anymore."

with

"Indi, folks like you are what make me feel ashamed to be an American today.

I don't know why I even bother to rebut your ignorant comment, but here goes:"

Now, as for your comments ...

"- being on welfare is not a luxury"

Who said it was? I suggested a theory that people on welfare are scared into voting for dems by the dems claiming that their entitlements will be taken away and that these pople are mostly in large cities

"- poor people tend not to vote"

So lets assume that's true. Don't you think poor people know other non-poor people who don't want them to lose their entitlements? Better off family members for example?

"- the social welfare teat is the smallest of the government teats to suck on. Take farm subsidies for instance."

So let's say that's true ... the people living in the cities on welfare , local, state and federal, (and those people sympathetic with their plight) don't live on farms and couldn't give a crap about farmers and what they get ... except for how it might cut in to their benefits.

I don't know why you believe Republicans are against welfare and social programs in general. I'm certainly not against a good safety net, not even permananet ones for those that need it and I don't know anyone who is against helping people who have no other recourse. The only difference is one of degree and what kind of help.

03 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

A majority of Americans is not buying what the left is selling. THe answer to that is not to blame your customers for being stupid. It's to change your product.

That just means more crappy, yet sellable product. I know brittney spears is what the public wants, but I sure hope Tom Waits doesn't start making Pepsi commercials.

And therein lies your problem. If you want to appeal to the Tom Waits niche, that's fine; just realize you're not going to top the charts.

If you want to be in the majority - which is kind of the point of politics - then you need to suck it up and give the public the best damn Britney Spears you can. If you don't want to do that, and you want to stick to Tom Waits, that's fine. Just don't whine when you can't get in the majority. You can't have it both ways, which is what it really sounds to me like what you're hoping for.

03 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Nope. Not libertarian (this is something they do in other countries). I'm not anything in that sense. My problems with organized political parties are similar with organized religions... too much boxing in of thought and ideas and not enough reflection, analysis and discourse. Organized religions (and political parties) rely on ceremony and dictates because it is easier to control that way.

As for the religions... they also have tons of OTHER things in them that people CHOOSE not to follow. To me, someone that had to study all three you mentioned, it seems incredibly arbitrary to choose homosexuality out of the lists of things to believe and follow vs. not follow. I mean, how many people are sacrificing lambs with the birth of their children? People are relying on religious leaders to determine their stance on the issues instead of open discourse about it. My other issue is that these texts have gone through quite a few translations, and you can simply look in different bibles to see interpretations. In the end, it is more important to question, for instance, would Jesus condemn gays or should you follow a couple of lines out of thousands as doctrine?

03 Nov 2004 | p8 said...

Levi, no one is forcing you to have a gay marriage.
Yet you think it is ok to force others by law not to have a gay marriage.

Like gay marriage, doesn't the bible also condemn other religions?
Do you think it is ok to force your religion onto others by law?

03 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

steves... OR, you can try and change public opinion. Right now the right has enjoyed years of uncontested rhetoric with Limbaugh, Fox News, O'Reilly, etc... as we are a media culture I don't think you have to change your views to get elected, you simply need to get more people to hear your views and make some converts. If the "News" does its job, it is impartial and then the two sides can make noise while the "News" stays objectively in the middle... or ideally, out of it. but right now, with media consolidation the news outlets are running scared. the left now has Air America radio which is just as bad as Limbaugh most of the time (Al Fraken's show is much better than the rest). do we really want more partisan crap on our airwaves? do we really want it to be a battle of who is the loudest? do we really want Jon Stewart to be the watchdog for journalistic integrity? come on!

03 Nov 2004 | p8 said...

"I think the only candidate who could have beaten Bush in this election is Jesus."

Bush goes negative on Jesus

04 Nov 2004 | p8 said...

If you want to be in the majority - which is kind of the point of politics - then you need to suck it up and give the public the best damn Britney Spears you can.

Yeah, let's aim for the lowest common denominator :(
This is what we really need: Politicians that change opinions quicker than these talentless artists are thrown of the charts.

I thought politics should be based on a vision of creating a better future, not following the latest trend.

Sticking with the band metafor:
Kerry would be a band like Nickleback: crap, even if they follow the formula.

04 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Eight short years ago, a fellow named "Clinton" got re-elected.

Were people stupid then, too?

04 Nov 2004 | indi said...

Don, even though I am a republican I have a soft spot for Clinton. One reason he was elected was that he took a more centrist approach, the other reason, both times was that Perot took away a large number of Republican votes. If you recall, Clinton never got a majority of the votes cast (below 50% both times). You gotta admit, though, the guy does have personal charisma ... so, no, people weren't stupid then :-)

But that's just my ignorant recollection ... I could be wrong.

04 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

President Clinton seemed to embrace The Third Way, which may be a good idea.

04 Nov 2004 | clubber lang said...

Don you ever seriously consider running for office? I know you are in a slump... could be your calling.

04 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

I don't know why you believe Republicans are against welfare and social programs in general.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said that.

The fact is that the holy books of at least three major religions (Islam, Christianity and Judiasm) condemn such relations.

So, you're saying you're on the fence on the gay marriage issue because of your religion. I assume you like the fact that you are free to practice your religion in this country. I'd have to assume that you enjoy the fact that our country has made it law that no one should be able to force their religion on another person. Since the only reason to NOT support gay marriage is a religioius one, isn't the very right TO be married if you are gay an issue of religious freedom?

Were people stupid then, too?

I don't know...did Clinton start unjust wars his first term? Did he have us in record deficit? Was he out to band the civil rights of a minority? Was he trying to cast christian doctrine as law?

Ultimately, nothing is going to improve if we just keep taking only one of two sides. We're just running in circles at this point. With some luck, SOMEONE SOMEWHERE will get in office and start changing the way the system works so more POVs are introduces and, as P8 so eloquently put, we begin to start working together on a "vision of creating a better future"

04 Nov 2004 | me said...

i heard a funny story...

a college student was having a conversation with her mother. during this conversation she told her conservative mother, "mom, i want you to know, i'm a liberal."

her mother replied "of course you are dear, you have nothing to conserve."

04 Nov 2004 | Dwight Joppa said...

Right now the right has enjoyed years of uncontested rhetoric with Limbaugh, Fox News, O'Reilly, etc... as we are a media culture I don't think you have to change your views to get elected, you simply need to get more people to hear your views and make some converts. If the "News" does its job, it is impartial and then the two sides can make noise while the "News" stays objectively in the middle... or ideally, out of it.

At least with Limbaugh and Fox News you know you are getting right spin. What about the major networks on the TV that is broadcast on the airwaves (free for anyone to pick up)? Those have pretty much all shown at least a slight leaning to the left. Earlier today on NBC Chris Matthews was telling Katie Couric about how the South was a bunch of idiots and that is why they voted Bush. Yeah, Fox called Ohio early, but every other station I watched seemed reluctant to accept that Bush might really win. Rathergate anybody? The continual calling of the blogosphere working for Bush secretly by major news reporters. The fact is that the media is overall left leaning, focusing on the few right outlets does not make the whole system a vast right wing conspiracy.

I would love for the news to be neutral, since that would radically change the political landscape from where "anyone but Bush" is such a strong choice, to one were its I'm voting for Bush or for Kerry. I think both sides had their sheep voting for them, I wish both sides would take a look at themselves before they jump all over the other side.

04 Nov 2004 | Levi said...

As for the religions... they also have tons of OTHER things in them that people CHOOSE not to follow. To me, someone that had to study all three you mentioned, it seems incredibly arbitrary to choose homosexuality out of the lists of things to believe and follow vs. not follow. I mean, how many people are sacrificing lambs with the birth of their children?

By this statement I can see that you aren't religious. Fine. That's your choice. But do we really have time to discuss religious doctrine and the reasons Christians do what they do. Just believe me that it is far more complicated than you would like to believe.

Comon - you hate Bush because of his lack of depth on certain issues but you do the same thing with religion. There are deep, personal and nuanced beliefs held by many citizens. To reduce them to bigotry or hatred of homosexuals is ignorant and in itself is bigotry.

04 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Levi, discussing the issue on your terms - I grew up in a religious household, I have a degree in religious studies, I'm more than adequately familiar with evangelical Christian theology - I understand that many Christians (and I'm sure conservative/observant Jews and Muslims) are uneasy with the idea of gay marriage because it is spelled out in the scriptures as something that is sinful. And one of the points of the each of those religions is to live a life that is as pleasing to God as possible.

But I still think that in many, not all, cases, the opposition to gay marriage and civil rights for gays is thinly disguised bigotry. American Christians already have a hangup with any sexual sins compared to any other sins - the sins of greed or ill treatment of the poor hardly seems to induce much hand-wringing from the main of evangelical American Christianity, which is one of many reasons I abandoned it - yet they get very uneasy with sexual sins. And homosexuality really sets them on edge.

Why do I say it's often thinly disguised bigotry? Because I do not see Christians attacking other sins with the same fervor. In the Old Testament, the admonitions against homosexuality are accompanied by admonitions against eating pork and shellfish, or coming into contact with a woman during her period. Last I checked, I don't recall seeing any efforts to condemn people who make any of those choices.

Of course, the standard Christian reply is that the OT law does not apply to Christians, that Christ came to fulfill that law and that the law's purpose was to illustrate how humanity could never on its own earn God's favor. So let's deal with it in the New Testament's terms. In the same passages where Paul condemns homosexuality, he also condemns gluttony. Not only is America a fat nation, numerous studies have shown that regular attenders of religious services and self-identified religious people have a markedly greater propensity toward being overweight or obese.

When evangelicals and the like start arguing that fat people should not be allowed to marry, or that they should not be able to teach or lead Boy Scout troops lest they teach impressionable children that it's OK to be fat, then I'll start buying their concern about gay marriage and civil rights on legal grounds. When I start seeing protestors at obese people's funerals holding signs saying "God hates fatties," then I'll grant that the deep condemnation of homosexuality stems solely from a desire to uphold God's ideal on earth.

In absence of that, the condemnation of homosexuality and the denial of basic civil rights for gays strikes me as nothing more than selective enforcement and interpretation of the Christian (or Judaic) scriptures. The church has an enormous plank in its own eye in the form of millions of fat members; it scarcely has the time to run around pointing out the speck in the eyes of a few gays who want to get married.

So, yes, I understand how the issue of gay marriage could give a Christian pause. I don't understand why that warrants more attention than any other sin. God doesn't rank them. Sin is sin. And it's not humanity's job to judge anyway. If two people who were born gay (after all, many overweight people - of which I am one, by the way - argue it's genetics that causes them to be fat) getting married is a sin in God's eyes, then he'll deal with it. Of course, everyone's in sin in God's eyes, according to Christian theology. So why is that particular one any better or worse than any other? Why should that one have a harsher legal sanction than any other?

That's why from both a secular viewpoint, as well as in the internal logic of Christian theology, opposition to gay marriage and civil rights makes absolutely no sense to me. In my opinion.

04 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

p8, it's not aiming for the lowest common denominator. It's doing what it takes to appeal to a majority. If that's your goal, that's what you have to do. If appealing to a majority is not your goal, but sticking to what you believe is right is - a noble goal, in my opinion - then you can't be surprised or upset when a majority doesn't go along.

You have to pick your objective. Being true to what you believe, no matter how unpopular, or doing what it takes to get 50 percent plus 1 to agree with you. Rarely do you get to have it both ways. Once in a while you get lucky and can, but it's not very often. It's awfully disingenuous to say you're sticking to your guns and then to complain when you can't get a majority to go along when a majority has demonstrated time and again they don't agree with your guns.

04 Nov 2004 | p8 said...

Don you ever seriously consider running for office? I know you are in a slump... could be your calling.

I agree. Don is a uniter and he is king of the one-liner, two things that would make him a great politician.

04 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Actually, I *might* decide to run for township supervisor. My brother has been a supervisor for the past dozen years, and is not going to run again. I figure I could run, make signs that say "Schenck: A Name You Can Trust" and ride that to victory.

I dunno. It's a lot of hours, a thankless job, and everyone blames you for everything. Hey ... come to think of it ... just like being married! :-)

04 Nov 2004 | DaleV said...

rimshot!

04 Nov 2004 | Phil said...

inidi, as usual you are 180 degrees off the mark. You accuse democrats of using fear to get votes. Please! The neocons are the Zen masters of fear tactics. The entire election swung on their genius use of fear to get votes. Every time Bush opened his mouth he wrapped himself in the cause of fighting terror, or keeping gays away from your family or protecting your church. These are extremely shallow yet extremely effective tactics which tap into people's most base emotions. Bush had NOTHING to run on. That's why he never spoke about policy or his plan. His plan sucks. The only thing they could do was convince people the towell-heads are out to get you and only we can save you.

I completely hand it to them. They know a mountain of evidence against them can be negated if the say "Are you children safe?".

04 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"By this statement I can see that you aren't religious. Fine. That's your choice. But do we really have time to discuss religious doctrine and the reasons Christians do what they do. Just believe me that it is far more complicated than you would like to believe."

I am actually quite spiritual, I simply do not follow any organized religion for the reasons I stated above. I was raised Catholic, but now even my father is considering leaving the church because of its protection of sexual offenders and homosexual bigotry. There is no "Christians believe" just like there is no "Muslims believe", there are so many sects and divisions you cannot speak for all. I would have to say though, my priest was one of the most thoughtful and intellectual people I have met and we had many great conversations.

Levi, you say there are reasons, then give them to me. I've included my email address. I haven't had ANYONE explain to me why homosexuality was chosen as a point of contention other than it is a way to arbitrarily judge and separate a group of people from your own. Many groups have a history of defining themselves not only as who they are, but who they are not. And I never just "trust" someone because they say so. I always want to know why. (Of course, this came back to haunt me as a teacher!)

04 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

To reduce them to bigotry or hatred of homosexuals is ignorant and in itself is bigotry.

Ah yes, again with the spin. You hate peopel that are bigots?! Then you're a bigot to! So there! ahahaha!

I haven't had ANYONE explain to me why homosexuality was chosen as a point of contention other than it is a way to arbitrarily judge and separate a group of people from your own.

Exactly. In the past couple of days, I've heard many, many peopel that voted for Bush come back with this 'stop the name calling' argument and an attempt to tell us that we lost the election simply because we were elitist.

If this were a football game, it'd be like the right winning because they played dirty, and then having the left told they lost because they didn't resort to dirty tactics and just complained to the refs instead.

I've come to the conclusion that the problem with American politics is that no one is talking about it. We never talk face to face with people with opposing political viewpoints. We let bloggers handle it. Or Crossfire. Or Limbaugh or Franken or O'Reilly. Or pat-each-other-on-the-back anti gay rallies or pro-choice rallies. Or the editorial page of the paper.

We're an ignorant country...all of us. We refuse to discuss politics intelligently in day-to-day life. We're been told that discussing politics with friends is a social faux paux (sp?), even though it's probably the one thing that directly affects all of our lives to the greatest extent.

04 Nov 2004 | scottb said...

I was sorry my Kerry vote did not help get Bush kicked out of office, but as I expressed before, I was not too wild about Kerry either. Despite (or because of) the latest poll numbers, the Green Party is growing even more quickly than before.
Given all the voting problems, I was glad my sign from 2000 is still good:
Nader Won, REFORM THE SYSTEM!

I would like to put all the Republicrats on notice and say don't wait another four years to ask how I will vote again. Please explore instant runoff voting and other electoral reforms, not just for the Presidential race, but also for local elections. U.S. elections are looked down upon by the rest of the world as totally inept jokes, even though they might admire our democratic ideal.

The reason why more young people do not show up is that they don't think voting matters, even after these close races. Again, REFORM THE SYSTEM!

04 Nov 2004 | Stomaphagus said...

ek wrote:

Contrast that with Kerry's position on the issue, which can be boiled down to: "Well, I don't support gay marriage, but I do support civil unions."

Actually, Bush said the same thing a couple days before the election. Had everyone in a tizzy about whether he would lose evangelical votes.

04 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Sancity of marriage ... yeah ... okay, then how about this:

A Constitutional Admendment called "Sancity Of Marriage Admendment". Basically says "You can marry anyone you want, but you can only marry once."

Yeah ... let's see how that flys. Bunch o' hypocrits.

04 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Don't forget, Clinton signed the Defence of Marriage Act. So there is plenty of blame to go around.

05 Nov 2004 | alisha said...

"Rats. My children will be paying down this deficit for no end in sight. The deficit will, in the long run, do more damage than Al Quaida."

Right. You might want to be more concerned about where your tax dollars are going. The American economy is going rapidly downhill. One of the Bush Admin.s biggest slams to the taxpayer was starting a war in Irak. Osama bin Laden and those on his side are on a campaign to "bleed America until bankrupcy". He gloats in his latest video about how exactly that is happening:

"As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the Mujahideen recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan with Allah's permission.

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Haliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is...you." (he means the US taxpayer)

We know that the war in Iraq has cost an estimated 140 billion dollars up until now. That number is going up rapidly. And were nowhere near a solution in the region. Break it down and the cost per capita has cost you, the tax payer, $510 so far. The estimated 200 billion for the war by 2005 is nothing compared to the benefits that a few wealthy US businesses will have from the securing of oil contracts in Iraq and neighboring countries. And you, dear taxpayer, are the one stuck with the bill. But dont worry, other countries will also start hurting, because the American economy effects world economy.
all I can say is here comes China...

"Welcome to the Divided States of America."

Yes, thats exactly what it is. 51% to 48% so far.

05 Nov 2004 | Carl said...

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained

Gained what? Their training camps in Afghanistan have been obliterated, their safe haven in Afghanistan is gone, 75% of their top leaders have been rounded up, hundreds of millions of dollars have been siezed and cut off. These are MAJOR achievements. How exactly have they "gained" in a major, measurable way?

05 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

Alisha, that's a very good post.

The mujhadin know all about using attritional guerilla warfare to drain opponent's resources. After all, the CIA set up OBL and his cronies in order to 'bleed the Russian bear white' in Afghanistan. It was considered a very successful tactic in US foreign policy circles when it helped to bring down the USSR.

And before all you gung-ho types counter that US military power is irresistable - or that the 'obliteration' of training camps is a major achievement - remember that Soviet military power was awesome at that time. And still they lost. On their own doorstep.

05 Nov 2004 | Carl said...

or that the 'obliteration' of training camps is a major achievement

I'll stand by that claim. Before we went into Afghanistan those camps were allowed to opperate with no interference at all. Terrorists could train freely without worry (except for a few missles lobbed by Clinton -- oooh, scary). Now they can't. Before, yes. Now, no. That is major. Downplay it if you wish, but I won't.

05 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

Fair enough, it's a major achievement. I can see where you're coming from.

But don't mistake it for a decisive achievement. The Russians, too, thought that decapitating the mujahadin leadership, blowing up their camps, and disrupting their (US funded) supply lines would deliver victory. Instead, it helped deliver the defining defeat of the late 20th century - the fall of communism.

What the USSR didn't attempt, of course, is the introduction (some would say imposition) of 'democracy'. It remains to be seen whether this will work to quieten an area that has little cultural or historical attachment to the ideal, but let's hope it does.

05 Nov 2004 | Carl said...

But don't mistake it for a decisive achievement.

I didn't. I said it was a major achievement. Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

I realize there's a lot to this war, and getting rid of the camps were major achievements, but it's not all we need to do and it's not a decisive victory that means we can go home and claim complete victory.

05 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

And if you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that I'm not saying you thought it decisive. I warned you not to fall into that trap, but I didn't say you're already in that trap! :)

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

The problem is, by starting a war in Iraq there have not been enough forces to keep Al Qaeda on the run. The have captured/killed 75% of the leadership that existed in 2000, but the makeup of Al Qaeda has changed since then. There are now more actual Al Qaeda memebers (though mostly suicide bombers and low level terrorists) and now 17% of Pakistan's government is Al Qaeda. The "president" there is too afraid to do anything about it because the country is on the edge of full upheaval there. And that is what is really the problem as I see it, because Bush's administration took their eye off the ball Al Qaeda again has large influence in a government, this time one with nuclear weapon capability, and we have no resources left with which to help fight that influence. We are so busy being on the defensive in Iraq that terrorism recruitment is actually stronger today than 4 years ago. All because Bush mislead about the WMDs... he didn't lie, he mislead, deceived. The weapons that they were even claiming Saddam had would have expired their usefulness. He changed his story from they have WMDs to we have to attack their capability. Using "intelligence" he was told was low quality to justify a war he wanted from the beginning is deceitful, and in the end, is costing us lives, money and the fight against terrorism.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

"That is major. Downplay it if you wish, but I won't."

Uhh...the terrorists that took out the WTC were trained in the US.

05 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Sloan -- I don't think it's correct to say "he mislead" us.

I think it's correct to say "he misled" us.

*wink*

Sorry ... it's one of my pet peeves.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

I don't think it's correct to say "he mislead" us.

In all fairness, that's exactly how Mr. Bush would pronounce it. ;o)

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Um. I'd like to take credit for being that clever Darrel! But on the west coast its was a bit early for me... So when will they add grammar/speiling checks to blogs? (Yes, that one is on purpose).

05 Nov 2004 | indi said...

"The American economy is going rapidly downhill. "

Huh? We're coming back stongly from the recession that started towards the end of Clinton's term when the IT bubble burst ... then the 9/11 attacks caused a further decline when the Airlines and related manufacturers took a big hit. Sure we have a big deficit now because of the war, but we've had big deficits before and have come back.

Geeze, DOOM ... GLOOM ...

05 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Gained what? Their training camps in Afghanistan have been obliterated, their safe haven in Afghanistan is gone, 75% of their top leaders have been rounded up, hundreds of millions of dollars have been siezed and cut off. These are MAJOR achievements. How exactly have they "gained" in a major, measurable way?

How exactly have they been handcuffed in any major, measurable way? (I'll actually answer your question in a moment.)

Yes, camps have been obliterated. It doesn't take a lot of training to pack a truck full of explosives and blow it up, or to strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a bus. A lot of the training goes on in apartments in Hamburg or south Florida. You don't really need camps.

The 75 percent figure is a figure from the Bush-Cheney campaign that has no actual statistical backing. We don't know enough about their organization to even know who their leadership is and how it's practiced. We've captured or killed a lot of people. But we don't really know who they were in the organization. The CIA and State will freely admit that. Hell, the purported No. 2 (I can't remember his name; he's Egyptian) is still referred to as the purported No. 2. We don't know for sure. So there's no way we can know that we've crippled 75 percent of the leadership.

Besides, this was never really a centralized organization, nor does it need to be. We've made it more difficult for coordination. But a bunch of independent splinter cells can still do a lot of damage. See a railway station in Madrid for evidence of that.

The true achievements, I think, are removing the ability for them to operate freely and with overt support of a friendly government. They don't have that know. If Musharaff ever falls, they may however have it again.

Making it more difficult to coordinate is also big. It will be much harder for them to pull off something like September 11. But they can still do a lot of damage with very, very simple operations like the Madrid rail station bombings. And, it's coming out that the Sept 11 operation wasn't the vast organization effort it was initially portrayed as. You're talking fewer than about 30-40 people all told. That's still not too difficult to do.

Now, to how they've gained, and to actually answer your question.

It must be remembered that Al Qaeda is not the problem. It's the whole of fundamentalist Islam and the Jihadist movement. Al Qaeda is only a part of that. And by every indication, that movement is growing and expanding and getting new recruits. Most of them are focusing their attentions right now on disrupting things in Iraq. But the movement is larger and more active now than ever. Once the State Department correctly revised their report on terrorist activity earlier this year, it's apparent that terrorist activity is higher than it's ever been. That is a major, measurable gain.

We have also tuned out an entire generation of Muslims from ever being remotely willing to give America the benefit of the doubt. Not all of them, not even most of them, are going to become actively and violently anti-American. But the only way the Jihadist movement will ultimately be stopped is from within the Islamic world itself. And there's not going to be that social pressure to do so, because there's widespread sympathy in particularly the Arab world now for making America suffer.

The phrasing of that last sentence reminds me of one other demonstrable, measurable gain for the Jihadist movement. Terrorism used to be limited to Arab Muslims. We didn't hear of Turks or Indonesians involved. Now there are active movements executing attacks in both of those areas. The Jihadist movement is spreading to the whole of Islam instead of staying in its Arab ghetto. That also is a gain for the terrorist and fundamentalist movements.

So, yes, they have gained in many major, measurable ways.

05 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Huh? We're coming back stongly from the recession that started towards the end of Clinton's term when the IT bubble burst ... then the 9/11 attacks caused a further decline when the Airlines and related manufacturers took a big hit. Sure we have a big deficit now because of the war, but we've had big deficits before and have come back.

Indi, in what way are we coming backing "strongly" from the recession? Not only did we have the mildest post-war recession on record, we've had the slowest and mildest recovery on record. We still have a net loss of jobs since January 1, 2001. I fail to see the "strongly" part fo the recovery.

Secondly, it's easy to blame the deficit on the war. But it's wrong. For one, most of the war spending has been "off budget" using special appropriations that are, in the Alice in Wonderland world of Washington accounting, are not counted in the deficit figures. And even if they were, the total spending on the war so far has somewhere around $200 billion. The deficit this year alone is over $400 billion.

Our current account deficit - budgetary and trade deficits combined - is now over $1 trillion. The only reason we have not crashed under those debt loads is because foreign governments are still willing to buy our debt. That well will run dry sometime. Probably sooner rather than later. China is one of the largest buyers of our debt. Economists are coalescing aroudn the idea that the Chinese economy is due for a major setback int he next 3-5 years. They won't be able to afford supporting our deficits. That will spell trouble.

When you look at the current financial picture from an economic standpoint rather than a political one, it is not pretty. Even conservative economists are ringing their hands.

Yes, there is gloom and doom. For good reason. If we don't fix this, that's exactly what there will be.

05 Nov 2004 | indi said...

"If this were a football game, it'd be like the right winning because they played dirty, and then having the left told they lost because they didn't resort to dirty tactics and just complained to the refs instead."

Whoa ... you just weren't paying attention then if you think the liberals weren't way way over the top with their open name calling and hatred, even having AFL-CIO "protesters" storm Bush Cheny campaign centers around the country - sometimes violently ... it was ugly. If this were a football game they would have been ejected. ;-)

05 Nov 2004 | indi said...

OK ooss, good points ... so what are these economists who are raising their hands suggesting we do?

The fact that the ecomony is recovering is good not bad. Maybe not as fast as would happen in an ideal world, but good nonetheless.

OK, so we'll see what happens with China. Tighter financial ties just means less of a chance of political conflict. Sorry for being such an optimist :-)

11 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

I had an interesting conversation with a gent that I work along side, that said that he thought Micheal Moore's "new movie about bush" was all just a bunch of liberal lies and bullshit. I then asked him about a particular part in the movie, to which he replied "oh, I didn't actually see it, I just saw what I needed to see in the previews to make up my mind on that."

This scenario reminds me so much of why we are in a war in Iraq that we have no business in, that's right NO BUSINESS. Going after Osama is justified, going after Saddam is not. Or if it is, why the hell are we ignoring the Sudan? Isn't that the right thing to do too? Heck it probably wouldn't take the US as much effort as Iraq has... but that's not the point is it?

Oh yeah, that link is from the BBC, I'd encourage folks to read news from other sources than US based news gladhounds, uh, I mean sources...