Huerta88, allow me to suggest that you relax and cut Diogenes the Cynic some slack. He is pissed at the result of the election and has allowed it to affect his rational faculties.
To wit:
So, subjects in which he is educated he is tolerant. Subjects in which he is not he is not. Odd that the nature of his intolerance takes the form of calling others ignorant, but that’s how the cookie crumbles and all.
Huerta88, let the liberals have their little rant. As long as they don’t take it too far (Dio or the guy who killed himself) they deserve our sympathy or at least our understanding. And even when they do take it too far, we should just let them have some space, smile sweetly (remember not to show too many teeth), and slowly back away. Engaging them in shouting matches will only cause their psycosis to deepen.
Not necessarily true. Kennedy managed to get elected in 1960, despite having no foreign policy experience and no major defense-voting record, while up against a figure from a relatively popular adminstration during the height of the Cold War.
I think Kerry’s major mis-step was in voting against the appropriations bill for Iraq. Once he did that, he eroded most of his ‘hawk’ credentials; especially given that he was tongue-tied in explaining his reasoning for a long while.
Also, to further butress my point that “it’s the terrorism, stupid”- Bush beat Kerry nationally by 3.05% of the vote. 19% of exit poll respondents stated that Terrorism was their number one concern; assuming that those who were afraid of terrorism also broke along the 58-40 lines that all exit pollers did, that’s a 3.42% lead. So, had Kerry even run even with Bush on the terrorism issue, he would have won the popular vote by a little more than Gore did in 2000. And, a 3.42% swing would have gotten Kerry Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio, for 325 electoral votes to Bush’s 213.