Ya know what, I’ll apologize for calling 'em morons.
It’s been very hard for me to swallow that uninformed voters are choosing to blame other people for their own failure to paritcipate fully in our republic.
I can respect repub positions on the issues.
It is very hard for me to respect people who didn’t vote on the issues.
Yes, the dems have to engage in memetic combat with a new ‘fighting style.’
I won’t argue that.
And I’m not frustrated by people who had real reasons for voting one way and then add “oh, and I didn’t like the tone.” It’s people whose sole reason to vote (or at least a major factor) was the tone.
Because, when you get right down to it, tone doesn’t sign bills into law, or get our troops into wars, etc, etc, etc…
But it does help win elections, which places parties in a position to sign bills into law, and get our troops into wars, etc, etc, etc…
There are voters that study every issue. But the reality of the political landscape is that there are voters that vote because they just like a candidate, or because the other side pissed them off. Maybe they are not “paritcipating fully in our republic,” but they are a bloc that cannot be ignored.
Unless you’d like to suggest some sort of basic qualification test before you’re permitted to vote?
Did Kerry call anyone or half the country stupid ? So you disregarded Republicans calling Democrats all sorts of “bleeding heart liberals” or “peacenicks” and took into consideration only a perceived smirky atitude ? You voted against people instead of in favor of something ?
Then naturally came Osama and he called Bush stuff… and you promptly voted “against” Osama bin Laden by electing Bush… nice… Osama must be devastated now.
Two things:
(1) In the quotes that Yosemite provided from the other thread (which I have not read), I don’t see people who were undecided, and then decided to vote for Bush based on obnoxious liberals. I see people who were going to vote for Bush, and then had that decision galvanized by what they perceived as obnoxious liberals.
(2) Here is the first paragraph of Ann Coulter’s poisonous Treason:
Can you find anything in the collected works or quotes of Al Franken or Michael Moore that’s even in the same LEAGUE as that? Seriously, which section of F911 conveyed the message that red-staters are evil homophobic idiots? Did I miss it because I was in the bathroom? Where in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them does Al Franken say that people who live in California are better than people who live in Alabama? Whereas, right there in the first bloody paragraph of the book, Ann Coulter says in absolute stark black and white that liberals don’t love America.
As a guy who weakly supported the Democrats this election, this is one of my complaints about the GOP. They do very little to separate themselves from their nutjobs. Pat Robertson remains an important figure in the GOP, he should be an embarassment. Jesse Helms deserved a seat on the Senate Windmill Oversight Commitee, instead he is given a position of great importance. John Ashcroft gets the job of AG. Republicans in SC make appearances at Bob Jones.
The GOP not only doesn’t disavow their extremists, they pander to them. How would conservatives feel if Al Sharpton was their Secretary of Health and Human Services? Is it any surprise that this tacit endorsment of radical politics scares the heck out of me? Say what you will about Michael Moore, he is a giant douchebag, but you don’t see candidates pandering to him and posing for photo ops. They recognize his radical agenda and properly distance themselves from it.
I think few voted on just that. I think that many of them are saying that the tone galvanized their stance. Here’s what I said earlier:
It also very likely was an issue-by-issue concept. They looked for clarification on certain issues, and one side was shittier than the other at clarifying. They soon began to distrust that side. Credibility was lost.
And the crappy tone sealed the deal. The other side had a chance, but they blew it because they were so obnoxious.
Keep living in that dream world. It will help you get votes. Oh wait . . . :rolleyes:
And let’s make it harder, and blame them when they have trouble sifting through the shit. Yes. Let’s do that.
And you think that the reason was just based on “tone” and nothing else, do you? That’s what you keep saying.
They were unimpressed with the message, I’ll warrant. They might have been convinced that there was more to it, but, you know, sifting through crap and all that.
Oh really? You think that the candidate’s site offers all the information needed to make an informed decision, do you?
And I’m sure you’d agree that clicking on George Bush’s site would offer all the information about him right? No need to delve further for more facts, eh?
But you said you read the thread that I quoted, and you said that you didn’t need to look any further because they’d said what they said? Now you’re saying, “Well, because they had other reasons!” What? We’re talking about the same thread, right?
Yeah, you are.
Blah blah blah. Keep making it as hard as possible for people to get to the truth, keep making the experience as unpleasant as possible, and keep blaming people for having the natural human reaction of not trusting the credibility of the side that gives a message covered in shit, and see how many votes you gain. Go ahead. See.
I don’t think you read the thread. I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point. We’re getting nowhere.
The thread hasn’t changed, you know. Nobody’s edited it. They said the same thing that they said the first time you read it. If you didn’t get the indication that the reasons were deeper the first time and you won’t delve further, then there’s no point pursuing this.
Well, obviously something different is going on. Why don’t you ask people?
Why don’t you ask them?
One possible answer might be that they were undecided on an issue that the dems were trying to further, therefore it was the dem’s job to try to sway them. And the dems sucked at it.
But they don’t see it that way. They see it as the asshole side lost. They’re not crying now, you are. They might regret their decision later, but they aren’t now. You are. And this is about how your side’s tone contributed to this whole issue.
Sorry it didn’t go in the direction that you’d hoped.
Yes, and in the case of voting, the consequences of a decision are felt by all. So let’s make these people who are at risk of making “wrong” decision feel as uncomfortable and as alienated as possible. Let’s make the odds that they’ll uncover the “truth” as remote as possible. And let’s then all lament when the predictable happens, and sit around blaming them completely for the outcome. It’s working great for you so far.
And all we get from you is that one watered-down concession, eh? Okay. Whatever.
Okay, obviously this changes what was said before. Sorry I spent all the time on my long-winded post before going further. :smack:
I see what you’re saying. Voting just on someone’s tone, or their smirk, is folly. I doubt that many people vote on just that, but some do.
The smirk, or looking like Herman Munster, well, trying to fight people’s reaction to that is futile. The overall tone, however—yes, there’s something that can be done. It’s a problem and a complication that is completely preventable, and some people aren’t trying to prevent it, or own up to it being the element that it is.
And as Bricker says, the fact is that some people do vote on overall tone alone. I personally don’t think that there’s a huge chunk of them, but they are a voting bloc. So, since they exist, and since they vote, try to be pragmatic about the whole thing. You want their vote, or not? Do you want results, or not?
Blaming them for being whatever they are, and not owning up to the fact that something completely avoidable on your side contributed to a unwanted or unpleasant outcome—well, that is folly too, is it not?
Yosemite, darlin’, it won’t make any difference. If Kerry had been as sweet as pie and respectful as an altar boy, it wouldn’t have mattered, because the Forces of Darkness were perfectly willing to twist his words any way they felt like.
Case in point: in the course of a discussion on creating diplomatic international coalitions to a purpose, he used the word “sensitive”. The FoD fell all over themselves to rush to the microphone: “Well, look at the “sensitive” little nancy-boy, wants to have a “sensitive” war, limp-wristed little liberal wants to make nicey-nice with the terrorists…”
What difference does it make what you say or how you say it if the other guy’s gonna lie about you anyway?
Absolutely. I heard a radio commercial on the Sunday before the election stating that Kerry said terrorism was a nuisance. I assumed that this lie was foisted upon us by some ancillary group until the “I’m George W. Bush and I approved this message came on.” Has anybody compiled a list of these types of distortions and lies? It would be fairly long.
The bottom line is that John Kerry is and was a good and decent man who served his country with honor and distinction. He ran a remarkably clean and positive campaign in the face of that run by his opponent. As others have observed, even Christ would be painted by these guys as a liberal and a foreigner, and that’s before they even got to lying about him!
“He’s against war, yet he once said ‘blessed are the Peace Keeper missiles’!”
“He wants to run some kind of federal welfare program for the meek, allowing them to inherit everything!”
Elucidator, Hentor, we’re now straying into mudslinging territory. Sure, both sides mudsling. Mudslinging has been around for a long time, and, unfortunately, it seems to work a lot of the time.
The people in the thread that Bricker and I cited were talking about something else other than mudslinging. Read what they’re saying. I believe these people are intelligent people, not ninnies. They said that the tone from the left (some on the left) was not persuasive. Didn’t help. Hurt. That’s the issue I’ve been discussing here.
I was going to ignore this, but then I decided that it might be important to just ignore. This accusation that we were just too darn mean and alienated people is absolutely par for the course. The Republicans say this because they don’t want a strong and forceful opposition, because in the end, that is what people want. People want to line up behind a champion - a champion for them, for their cause, for their country. Were people saying that Kerry was too darn mean? Were they saying that he was too tough, too forceful, to single minded of purpose? No, they charged that he was weak, wishy washy, flip floppy, French, sensitive, liberal, hell, they charged him with being from Massachusetts! Look at Rove’s strategy – attack Kerry’s strength. Kerry had actually demonstrated enormous guts, courage and strength in earlier days, while at the same time Bush did his best to stay stateside and then shirked his duty. Rove did his usual of trying to turn this to a liability, and was to some extent able to do that.
This is classic Republicanism – call the Democrats all the names in the book. Do so openly and often. (Which candidates were known for calling others “major league assholes” and saying “Go fuck yourself?” Can you ever recall this kind of language from people who won elections?) Lie about them and muddy the waters about their strengths. Make them look weak and effeminate. Then in the end, charge them with being mean, demonizing, and shrill. Call upon them to stop, to be more civil, to unify.
People, at their core, want to be protected, probably especially at this time. So fuck this nonsense that we alienated voters to lose the election. We did alienate them, but only by not standing up and fighting fire with fire, by proving that we were tough enough to take on the Republicans, let alone other enemies of the US. We alienated them before the campaign by rolling over and biting the pillow while Bush pushed his agenda.
Don’t fall for it again. Don’t roll over. Don’t buy that we weren’t civil enough. We were, once again, too civil. Stop turning the other cheek. People aren’t respecting us for it. They are voting for the people who tell others to go fuck themselves.
Thanks for your concern. Every time. You say it. Over and over. Bricker.
Seriously, folks, we don’t win by allowing others to tell us what we should be saying. Especially when they have made clear they would vote for Bush if he were found in bed with a dead girl and a live boy and Karl Rove’s butt plug in his mouth. With videotape and a signed receipt and a book called “This Sort of Thing is My Bag, Baby!”
Who wants to bet that Bricker will be back to say that we’ll lose again?
Hentor, I have to agree. The Democrats have to get mad enough to stand up and yell “That’s bullshit” whenever they can. They have to stop being so “nice and sportsmanlike” in their campaigns and debates. They have to go for blood, just like their opponents. Look at the whole Swifties thing. Kerry should have got in their faces, and said “You’re damn liars”. When he had Bush cornered on the many everchanging reasons for going to war, he should have closed in like a shark, but he never did. He could have brought up the many reports that said NO WEAPONS, and Bush’s total failure to find any; he never did. When Bush talked about steadfast resoluteness, he should have hammered on that, comparing it to a mental case who constantly bangs his head against the wall even though it hurts like hell. When Bush talked about religion, he should have asked why religion was not important until it became “useful”. He should have had his own “unafilliated goon squads” (Swifties like). He should have put the pressure on and turned the screws, but he never did. He should have pounced on Bush’s version of “triumph of the will” but didn’t. The Republicans didn’t win the election, the Democrats lost it. Politics is a dirty game. You have to get dirty to win.
Let me propose a thought experiment for you, if you can take a moment’s respite from trying to answer arguments with gloating.
Suppose you’re in an auditorium, seats 1,000, all seats are full: 520 blue eyed, 480 brown eyed people. You are blindfolded. At a certain moment, all the blue eyed persons cheer, a moment later all the brown-eyed persons cheer. You are supposed to determine the difference.
And you, you will say “Wow! The blue eyed people are, like, totally in the majority, their voices entirely swamp the browns.”
Or would you more likely say “Could you do that again, I’m not quite sure…”
