|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2004 06:26:12 PM · #101 |
Many wonder what it will take to restore social civility to Washington, to get Republicans and Democrats mingling again. Rock-ribbed Republican Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, proffered a solution, telling us that Democrats must accept the finality of their powerlessness. "Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such." Norquist assured us that he meant neutered "psychologically" and his metaphor was "facetious." Of course: Let the healing begin.
- - -
//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24186-2004Nov4.html
For those that still believe that Republicans are in fact interested in "working together," there you have it: from the mouth of one of the generals of the conservative movement in this country. They expect us to roll-over, be neutered and merrily remain in silence. Or, as Scott would have it, take it upon our own hands and opt for self-exile in Canada. This is not the time to roll-over, find like-minded friends and neighbors, join your local Democratic party and let's get our country back on the right track.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 07:08:04 PM · #102 |
bdobe:
I'm curious about the source of your numbers and analysis. If you're talking about the exit polls - well, I'm going to flip-flop a bit. :)
On the one hand, these are the same exit polls that predicted Kerry would win decicively, and (at least in early reported results) that 59% of the voters were women. (The final number was 54%, which seems to me to be high, and a possible indication that the sampling was flawed. But maybe not.) Also interesting - the claim I usually hear is 10% of the population is gay, yet only 4% of that sampling identified themselves as such. Either conventional wisdom or this sampling is off. CNN described it pretty well (though this isn't verbatim): exit polls are only good for analysing general trends. The sampling simply isn't big enough to draw absolute conclusions.
On the other hand... If you do want to look for trends in the exit polling, then look at the results posted at CNN. If you want to look at trends across the board, just at a glance, support for Bush was either the same or higher than 2000 in nearly every category. Just as a sample, his support was up among:
- Women +5%
- African-Americans +2%
- Hispanics +9%
- every age demographic over 30 +2%-+7%
- independents +1%
- republicans (despite all the Republicans for Kerry hype) +2%
- moderates +1%
- conservatives (despite all the Conservatives for Kerry hype) +3%
- Catholics +5%
- Jewish +6%
- religion = "None" +1%
- those who never attend church +4%
Some other observations:
- Oddly, the numbers relating to evangelicals is not there (the category is listed, but the numbers are all 0). But regardless, these numbers show increased support across most religious segments, as well as among moderate independents. Only among those who listed their religion as "other" was he down, and I would assume (based on a news report from a couple weeks ago) that was among muslims.
- While 22% listed "moral values" as the most important issue (and 80% of them did vote Bush), when asked the most important quality in a leader, "religious faith" only got 8% (just above intelligence at 7%). Of the other categories where Bush did well, "honest/trustworthy" (11%), "strong leader" (17%) and "clear stand on issues" (17%) were all chosen in higher numbers. So "moral values" was not just equated to "christian" or "religious zealot".
- Something I find very interesting: among liberals (progressives, if you like) and democrats, he did not loose any support. (Also, keep in mind these are all percentages. That means that since the total number of voters went up, the number of liberal and democrat votes for Bush went up.)
- There were nearly 5% of the voters who described themselves as dissatisfied with or angry with Bush who voted for him anyway. Why aren't you angry with them? If they had voted for Kerry, he would be president.
Like I said, I'd be interested in the source of your numbers, especially on the percentage of evangelicals, since its missing from CNN's table. Based on your assertion that "in 2000 conservatives/Evangelical Christians composed about 20-25% of voters, in 2004 conservatives/Evangelical Christians represented about 30-35% of voters", just off the top of my head, that would mean that nearly the entire increase in voter turnout from 2000 to 2004 was made up of evangelicals. (I can't find the numbers right now, but I'm basing that on something like 100 million voters in 2000 and 115 million in 2004. That would mean on the low end, the number of evangelicals went from 20m to 34m, a difference 14m. And that's being generous.) That would mean that the democratic GOTV effort was an utter and absolute failure. In fact, on the high end, it would mean the democrats had to have lost voters. I find this highly unlikely.
As for your analysis of the historical trend there, I see flaws in it as well, but this post is too long as it is. Another time... |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 07:25:19 PM · #103 |
I would like to know, additionally, what's so offensive about thinking these things eric has outlined in his post?
Originally posted by ericlimon:
ScottK, RonB, davidEy, etc...
Tell me whats wrong with not agreeing with a stupid war?
whats wrong with not agreeing to endless civilian bloodshed?
whats wrong with believing in health care for everyone?
whats wrong with me thinking the president is a moron?
whats wrong with believing in the womans right to chose?
whats wrong with believing in investing in education instead of guns?
whats wrong with believing in joining the entire world at the table instead of pushing them away?
whats wrong with believing in gay rights?
whats wrong with believing in basic civil liberties?
whats wrong with believing in taking care of the enviroment?
whats wrong with believing in keeping American jobs in America?
whats wrong with believing in keeping a seperation of church and state?
tell me. what is wrong with that? |
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 07:49:52 PM · #104 |
This opinion piece [login required; click here to avoid having to create an account], printed in today's Atlanta-Journal Constitution really says a lot...
"Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.
...
This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints ΓΆ€” bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices ΓΆ€” amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.
But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are ΓΆ€” both real and fabricated ΓΆ€” Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America.
...
Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.
Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free ΓΆ€” honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth." |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 08:40:41 PM · #105 |
I never said anything about "offensive". I did, however, complain about the tone - see the fourth item in his list. As far as his list, I believe he's wrong on some, well intentioned on others, naive about others. For example, its because of guns that he is free to believe these things - guns vs. education is nonsense. But I recognize that he's well intentioned in wanting to see education improved.
To borrow a bit from Grover Norquist's analogy, if he, and others, didn't "go around peeing on the furniture and such", there might be a chance to move forward.
Originally posted by frisca:
I would like to know, additionally, what's so offensive about thinking these things eric has outlined in his post?
Originally posted by ericlimon:
ScottK, RonB, davidEy, etc...
Tell me whats wrong with not agreeing with a stupid war?
whats wrong with not agreeing to endless civilian bloodshed?
whats wrong with believing in health care for everyone?
whats wrong with me thinking the president is a moron?
whats wrong with believing in the womans right to chose?
whats wrong with believing in investing in education instead of guns?
whats wrong with believing in joining the entire world at the table instead of pushing them away?
whats wrong with believing in gay rights?
whats wrong with believing in basic civil liberties?
whats wrong with believing in taking care of the enviroment?
whats wrong with believing in keeping American jobs in America?
whats wrong with believing in keeping a seperation of church and state?
tell me. what is wrong with that? |
|
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 09:08:18 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
............Like I said, I'd be interested in the source of your numbers, especially on the percentage of evangelicals, since its missing from CNN's table. Based on your assertion that "in 2000 conservatives/Evangelical Christians composed about 20-25% of voters, in 2004 conservatives/Evangelical Christians represented about 30-35% of voters....... |
Not sure how accurite this is because it is the exit pole.
I am not an Evangelical Christian, and have no reason to stir the pot. I just thought this was interesting. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 09:11:35 PM · #107 |
| What hypocracy! If you are going to complain about tone, why don't you start with some on your own side, such as, Graphic Funk, who has many times referred to the liberals as the "loony left?" Or the foul language of Russell2563? Or maybe you should really comment on the tone of the conservative media pundits, such as Rush Limbaugh? Bill O'Reilly? Michael Savage? Shaun Hannity? The left has been enduring their attacks for many years now and when the progressive liberals start to have an attitude you start crying foul. If you ask me, G Bush is a moron for sending more than a thousand Americans to die in an unneeded war, and more than 100,000 innocent women, children and men in Iraq to their deaths as well. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 09:15:34 PM · #108 |
Both sides have been enduring attacks (not just in these forums).
Let's all try (Scott, Olyuzi, anyone else involved) to keep "personalities" out of it, please.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 09:28:46 PM · #109 |
I'll ask it again. And yes ScottK, your tone can be pretty offensive. Hold up that mirror at me, when your done, turn it around and face yourself.
As a "Liberal" minded person, I will ask again, - - - - - - >
ScottK, RonB, DavidEy, etc...
Tell me whats wrong with not agreeing with a stupid war?
whats wrong with not agreeing to endless civilian bloodshed?
whats wrong with believing in health care for everyone?
whats wrong with me thinking the president is a moron?
whats wrong with believing in the womans right to chose?
whats wrong with believing in investing in education instead of guns?
whats wrong with believing in joining the entire world at the table instead of pushing them away?
whats wrong with believing in gay rights?
whats wrong with believing in basic civil liberties?
whats wrong with believing in taking care of the enviroment?
whats wrong with believing in keeping American jobs in America?
whats wrong with believing in keeping a seperation of church and state?
tell me. what is wrong with that?
Message edited by author 2004-11-04 21:56:10. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 10:50:37 PM · #110 |
Some in the Bush-brand Republican party recognize exactly what their so-called "moral mandate" (WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE!) will look like, and don't like what it means:
PROVIDENCE (AP)-Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he would consider switching parties if President Bush is re-elected.
"I'm not ruling it out," Chafee told The Providence Journal.
[...]
The Republican senator said it would have been impossible to vote for President Bush given their opposite views on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the deficit, tax cuts, the environment and the war in Iraq.
[...]
Chafee said ever since President Bush has been in office "it's been an agenda of energizing the far-right-wing base, which is divisive."
(Emphasis added by me)
---------------------------------------
//www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/ussenate/2004-11-03-ri-chaffee_x.htm
The only reason Bush has been elected for the first time is because of the segment of the population that voted on what they consider to be "moral issues," and now, their president, presumes to impose a so-called "moral mandate" on the entire country.
Message edited by author 2004-11-04 22:54:35.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 11:29:34 PM · #111 |
The election proves two things:
1. The country is conservative. Liberalism is not the mainstream politics. The country is center-right, not left.
2. Who got Bush elected? Christians and gun owners like myself :)
What did Kerry do wrong? Well, besides that he's the most ultra-left Senator out there (pretty close), he never really connected with the middle americans. Bush, on the other hand, went to Catholic churches, went to Hispanic communities, black churches, etc. and tries to connect with people and talk with them. What does kerry do? He spends the last 2 weeks of the campaign with Bruce Springsteen????? How does that help to connect with the moderates and conservative Democrats?
Now, it's not to say that Bush is perfect. His war policies in Iraq is just bad... not the invasion itself, but the actual planning of the war. Rumsfeld initially wanted 50,000 troops, Pentagonwanted 400k. They settled on 185,000, so while the military supports Bush, they despise Rumsfeld -- the guy got really arrogant after Afghanistan and I think he'll be on a short list to be replaced once the Iraq thing is finished in a year.
It's because Bush connects with most Americans. Kerrydidn't... Kerry just seems so pompous. Bush is always underestimated and he enjoys it :)
Democrats needs to realize that the heart and soul of this country isn't about Hollywood, it's about conservative values (and i don't really mean religious values, though some part of it is about religion), what i mean is -- conservative values that preserve the Constitution, judges that don't put their personal opinionwhen making decisions on social issues, but follow the Constitution to the letter. It means, civil rights doesn't just cover only freedom of speech, it covers GUN RIGHTS as well.
Democrats need to drop all those special interests groups on the fringe like Greenpeace, Hugatree Foundation, Marry-your-dog-and-cat organization, National Organization of Witches (NOW), Planned Infanticide, Free-Tibet, Legalize Marjuna, and of course, endorsements from Hollywood. They need a candidate, moderate on issues like abortion and gun control -- this doesn't mean they have to support banning abortion, but common sense values such as REDUCING abortion and support for legal rights of gun owners.
I suspect that it will take at least 1-2 more election cycles for Democrats to realize this. Even though people viewed John kerry as better for economics, they value their morals and rights first. In fact, probably the most successful ad in Ohio from the NRA (which i belong to) was the message that "You can always find another job, but once you lose you gun rights, youwill never have it back". This is why 66% of gun owners in Ohio voted Bush. The liberals are scratching their heads....
:)
Viva Bush!
Tony
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 02:50:12 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by paganini:
The election proves two things:
1. The country is conservative. Liberalism is not the mainstream politics. The country is center-right, not left. |
The numbers don't support your conclusion. In a nation of 217,767,000 adults of voting age, only 115,945,902 of us turned out to vote (53.2%); and I suspect that many of those adults that did not vote for either candidate, including the 55,638,551 of us that voted for Kerry, would object to any imposition of your conservative views on us.
Originally posted by paganini:
2. Who got Bush elected? Christians and gun owners like myself :) |
You're correct about that. I would add the following to your list: Individuals that narrowly define "moral values" as meaning being anti-choice and anti-marrige of same-sex couples; I would also add those individuals that continue to ignore facts regarding Iraq, and which continue to erroneously belive that Saddam Hussein had something to with 9/11 and that he possessed WMDs:
Remember, David Kay, the CIA's Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq after the invasion, concluded that Iraq did not posses WMDs, and that, to his satisfaction, Iraq did not have WMDs before the invasion (ref):
"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on."
Originally posted by paganini:
What did Kerry do wrong? Well, besides that he's the most ultra-left Senator out there (pretty close), he never really connected with the middle americans. Bush, on the other hand, went to Catholic churches, went to Hispanic communities, black churches, etc. and tries to connect with people and talk with them. What does kerry do? He spends the last 2 weeks of the campaign with Bruce Springsteen????? How does that help to connect with the moderates and conservative Democrats? |
Well, I can tell you that Kerry connected with me and with the hundreds of Kerry-supporters that I personally met as I knocked on doors to campaign on his behalf. I was in Arizona, Nevada and in Southern-California, volunteering my weekends to knock on doors and making phone calls for Kerry and the Democratic party. And trust me, I would not do that for someone I did not believe in. Kerry and the Democratic party represent the kind of America I want to live in, and the kind of America I want my future children to belive in. Bush and his party do not represent my core values of tolerance, hope, and of shared responsibilities and shared burdens. To me, Bush's party represents selfish-individualism, arrogance, cronyism and of religious imposition.
Originally posted by paganini:
Now, it's not to say that Bush is perfect. His war policies in Iraq is just bad... not the invasion itself, but the actual planning of the war. Rumsfeld initially wanted 50,000 troops, Pentagonwanted 400k. They settled on 185,000, so while the military supports Bush, they despise Rumsfeld -- the guy got really arrogant after Afghanistan and I think he'll be on a short list to be replaced once the Iraq thing is finished in a year. |
I agree with half of this, and would add the following: The war was wrong to begin with, period. Iraq did not posse a "grave and gathering threat," and the world knows it. The only ones that still belive this are Bush's supporters. Now, as for the "Iraq thing" being over in a year: because of Bush's war of choice in Iraq, WE -- the American people -- have now made a multi-generational commitment to that country, in terms of funding and blood... here's the point we in Iraq for the long-haul. Remember, in the 3rd debate it was briefly mentioned that we're building 14 large scale bases in Iraq, and I don't suspect that we're building them for them to be occupied by Iraqis.
Originally posted by paganini:
It's because Bush connects with most Americans. Kerrydidn't... Kerry just seems so pompous. Bush is always underestimated and he enjoys it :)
Democrats needs to realize that the heart and soul of this country isn't about Hollywood, it's about conservative values (and i don't really mean religious values, though some part of it is about religion), what i mean is -- conservative values that preserve the Constitution, judges that don't put their personal opinionwhen making decisions on social issues, but follow the Constitution to the letter. It means, civil rights doesn't just cover only freedom of speech, it covers GUN RIGHTS as well.
Democrats need to drop all those special interests groups on the fringe like Greenpeace, Hugatree Foundation, Marry-your-dog-and-cat organization, National Organization of Witches (NOW), Planned Infanticide, Free-Tibet, Legalize Marjuna, and of course, endorsements from Hollywood. They need a candidate, moderate on issues like abortion and gun control -- this doesn't mean they have to support banning abortion, but common sense values such as REDUCING abortion and support for legal rights of gun owners. |
After reading stuff like this it becomes ever clear that we're a divided nation, at least on cultural issues; and that it's no wonder that the Republican party manages to use wedge issues so effectively. My friend, I represent the core American ideals that I'm sure you'd claim to support: I'm an immigrant, I served in the Marines, my younger brother served in the Marines, I attended night-school and eventually put myself through college, I have a wonderful and beautiful family, I belive in conserving our natural resources (in part, so you can fish and hunt), I support a woman's right to chose (which I'd say is as much her right as you'd claim that it's your right to own guns)... I am a Democrat.
Originally posted by paganini:
I suspect that it will take at least 1-2 more election cycles for Democrats to realize this. Even though people viewed John kerry as better for economics, they value their morals and rights first. In fact, probably the most successful ad in Ohio from the NRA (which i belong to) was the message that "You can always find another job, but once you lose you gun rights, youwill never have it back". This is why 66% of gun owners in Ohio voted Bush. The liberals are scratching their heads....
:)
Viva Bush!
Tony |
No, no scratching of heads... I, and many of us, know exactly what occurred, and understand what needs to be done. In the meantime, you and many of Bush's supporters, voted for a man whose lies and deeds have already cost us over a thousand American lives and the lives of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 03:11:52.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 03:07:51 AM · #113 |
I'll ask it again. And yes ScottK, your tone can be pretty offensive. Hold up that mirror at me, when your done, turn it around and face yourself.
As a "Liberal" minded person, I will ask again, - - - - - - >
ScottK, RonB, DavidEy, etc...
Tell me whats wrong with not agreeing with a stupid war? childish question...ignored
whats wrong with not agreeing to endless civilian bloodshed? demagoguery...ignored
whats wrong with believing in health care for everyone? nothing...remember this is not a socialist country
whats wrong with me thinking the president is a moron? childish...ignored
whats wrong with believing in the womans right to chose? nothing
whats wrong with believing in investing in education instead of guns? demagoguery...ignored
whats wrong with believing in joining the entire world at the table instead of pushing them away? demagoguery...ignored
whats wrong with believing in gay rights? nothing
whats wrong with believing in basic civil liberties? nothing
whats wrong with believing in taking care of the enviroment? nothing
whats wrong with believing in keeping American jobs in America? nothing
whats wrong with believing in keeping a seperation of church and state? nothing
tell me. what is wrong with that? your tone is atrocious and deconstructive
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 03:12:28. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 09:07:26 AM · #114 |
Looks like Bush stole the election again. Voting fraud raises its ugly head! No wonder he was so "confident", just like last year. :(
//www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=388
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 09:08:30. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 09:21:12 AM · #115 |
And here is more evil speculation, innuendo, and demagogery on the subject, with some very interesting info on the connection between the AP, electronic voting machines, and the Republican party. Pure innuendo, of course ;D
//www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/con04482.html |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 09:28:58 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by Article19:
fools will always refuse to answer tough questions because they just can't!
|
well first of all you can tell by the tone of most of the questions that they are more rhetorical questions than anything else. all others i answered. what is the point of the questions though? there's nothing wrong with voicing your opinion at all, you just lost that's all, so you're understandably bitter because you couldn't believe the propanganda machine called kerry could lose. i understand your frustration.
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 18:45:18. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 09:31:34 AM · #117 |
| did site council decide to allow personal attacks in the rant forums again? |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 09:42:59 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by achiral:
did site council decide to allow personal attacks in the rant forums again? |
we gotta sleep sometime! :-)
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 10:13:29 AM · #119 |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 11:44:50 AM · #120 |
I just found this information about possible voting fraud:
//www.blackboxvoting.org/#breaking
Please read from the top of the page and note that they need help with their investigation, donations and/or volunteers. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 12:30:24 PM · #121 |
Ouch!! :D That is some wicked humor. :) |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 01:05:51 PM · #122 |
And another general information article on the same topic:
//msnbc.msn.com/id/3339650/ |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 01:08:29 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I just found this information about possible voting fraud:
//www.blackboxvoting.org/#breaking
Please read from the top of the page and note that they need help with their investigation, donations and/or volunteers. |
I think I know of some voter fraud too. Send me some money and I'll investigate :)
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 01:09:37 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I just found this information about possible voting fraud:
//www.blackboxvoting.org/#breaking
Please read from the top of the page and note that they need help with their investigation, donations and/or volunteers. |
But from what i read, if there is a suspicion of fraud, it isn't that certain ballots weren't counted, but an entire chunk of them, right?
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 01:31:12 PM · #125 |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:21:37 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:21:37 PM EDT.
|
