The Republican lie is that Democrats don’t believe there is a threat. We know there’s a threat, and we know that it’s exacerbated by Bush’s middle-finger-to-the-world Foreign Policy.
And yes, Americans are ignorant and misinformed.
I find it interesting that people say Democrats don’t give anyone reason to vote “for” them, just against Bush. Bush ran against Kerry. He had very few commercials about himself, they were all about Kerry. His website had 9/10 links committed to attacks on Kerry.
Well, about 51% of them are.
Democrats lost this election because most of the first time voters who were expected to turn out in droves for this election are still looking at each other and saying “Dude, the election was yesterday!”. When you depend upon the slacker vote to win, you have to realize that they’re not as reliable as you might hope.
First time voters were 10% of the total, same as 2000.
The fact that exit polls, pretty widely reported on the web, skewed towards a Kerry win, may have made many young net users stay home out of overconfidence, while not discouraging Bush voters, who don’t tend to get their news from the web, might be a compounding factor.
No, actually only 48%.
So we should have let Iraq have Kuwait then?
But the fact is, radical Islamic terrorists had attacked the west for a looong time before the first Gulf War.
If American ignorance and lack of being informed leads to swelling votes for Republicans, do you consider the primarily Democratic effort to get out the vote strategically ill-conceived?
Bush won, but it was really a victory for the Conservative Right. There is no unified opposition to them.
They have demonstrated they have the muscle to elect who they want. Damn them.
Although I was tempted to say a candidate from the south may be more viable, look at John Edwards…and at Al Gore. Couldn’t carry their home states.
Now I can’t help but wonder what’s next on the Bush agenda? An invasion of Iran?
Do you have a cite for this assertion?
Oh yes, and perhaps Bush’s victory is partially due to the “rally around the flag” syndrome.
I heard Peter Jennings’ remark on ABC last night that no U.S. presidential incumbent has been unseated during wartime.
My relatives have been saying “It’s not a good idea to switch horses in midstream.” And no, they haven’t seen Wag the Dog & couldn’t care less about it.
Well, I heard they have those free toasters to encourage gays to recruit more. That might make up some of the difference. Maybe if we straights started giving out microwaves to those who switch gays back, we could erode this key Democrat base. 
I give in. Who, if anybody, is RikWriter talking about?
Apparently you don’t remember the terrorist attacks on the west by radical fundamentalist Islamicists that began in the 70s and have never ended. I suggest some remedial reading.
I’m not overly worried about terrorists, though I think Bush should have spent more time in Afghanistan and less in Iraq.
I think Bush royally screwed up in Iraq and I opposed the invasion from the beginning.
I also hate Bush’s economic and enviornmental policies, and his positions on gun control and the death penalty.
But, in a very difficult decision, I voted for him. Not because of any of these issues, but because of the so-called ‘moral’ issues – abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, gay marriage, and my fear that Kerry might have the chance to make several Supreme Court appointments. Also, the anti-religiosity of the left in general (which several people have demonstrated for me in this thread).
Is Bush my ideal candidate? Hell no. But my ballot didn’t have a “None of the above” option. And Kerry didn’t give me anything to work with.
You could look here.
I gave my answer to this OP last week.
Nice site (cite). Thanks!
First, having 100 guys looking for someone is not like having 200 guys looking. We have resources available to look for terrorists directly, instead they are in Iraq.
Iraq is comparable to Vietnam in that I don’t think there is any compelling reason for us to be there. Was Iraq a threat to US citizens? They had no WMD. They had no clear ties to terrorists. They just had an insane and unstable ruler, like 50 other countries across the globe.
Yes, we were attacked prior, nobody can change that, however going into Iraq when they were not a threat does not protect anyone in any way.
what i kept hearing on the radio is that exit polls kept turning up “morality” and “trust” as the big concerns for voters. first of all, how can you trust a president that has continuously misled his people for what, two years? he was a dunk, a cokehead, and slithered his way out of the national guard. and his whole reelection scheme was to milk 9/11 for all it was worth and play up how dead you’ll all be if you vote for kerry. but he was born again, so i guess all of that doesn’t matter.
second of all, what’s all this “morality” bullshit? it has to be the gay marriage issue. and it’s not like kerry is even taking a hard stance on it. he’s taking the civil union route which is pretty weak in my opinion. whoever said democrats are republican-lite is spot-on.
i understand there’s a democratic and republican base of voters. sure, there are real reasons to vote republican, and i respect that. people want tax cuts, sure. i see taxes as necessary, but i understand how people can argue the other way. but how can a candidate win all the debates but lose the election? what else is there but the issues? oh yeah, people “want to drink a beer” with bush. and kerry is too literate. what is this country coming to? however you look at it, this election was based on pure reactionism, and bush won by swaying the bigots, the ignorant, and the scared.
i heard something very telling the other night while having dinner with my girlfriend and her parents (all hard-core conservatives). they were saying that clinton “wasted” his presidency by “not doing anything.” i brought up the financial boon during his presidency and it was immediately dismissed as a fluke or a holdover effect of the senior bush (i had to supress choking on that one). althought they didn’t say so explicitly, i think they felt you had to have some sort of large-scale military action to define a presidency, which both bushes had. reagan had a lot of covert stuff going, but the cold war was his conflict. anyway, since clinton didn’t waste scores of lives in a personal vendetta, he was considered a pretty worthless leader.
my real concern is what will happen next elecation. will the republicans trot out cheney as their candidate? this “culture war” (or war ON culture) will have another 4 years to further polarize the nation, and who knows who the democrats will be able to dig up to run against him. hilary clinton? if a guy from massachussetts can’t win, there’s no way a woman will. john edwards? he’s kind of a lightweight. barak obama? they’ve been hyping this kid as the second coming since the convention, but he’s young and black. you think a easterner has problems with the south… howard dean? he yelled funny once. kerry’s done, he had his chance.
sorry for the rant, i’m just frustrated…
RandomLetters:
But won’t the microwaves make them sterile, thus defeating the purpose?
(g,d & r)