Obviously, and unfortunately, Bush is going to win the election on November 2nd.
The post mortem analysis as to why over 50% of electorate voted for him will indicate that the majority of them were ignorant to believe in the following 2 issues:
1- Bush is more qualified to fight terrorism
2- Bush is a man of faith
Both of the above beliefs are illusions and totally irrelevant to what is best for the future of the US and the world, thus pointing to the ignorance of the majority of Americans and their electorate. Obviously, the majority who will vote Bush back into the White House, are totally out of it. As Gore Vidal said, here is a clear demonstration of Americans going to the poles every 4 years and voting against their own best interest.
1- The root of terrorism is in the increasing gap between the rich and the poor on this planet. Since Bush is not even addressing this central issue, he has no clue how to go about reducing terrorism.
2- If you vote for a man merely because he is “re-born” and shares your religious beliefs, then you belong to the Ayatollah land and deserve to remain backward and oppressed.
So, the question becomes what should be done in the next 4 years to “Wake Up” the ignorant people who voted for Bush on November 2, 2004. One suggestion is to broadcast every move or policy put in place by the Bush administration during the next 4 years, relating each move and mistake to the above two illusionary beliefs. To begin eradicating ignorance during the next 4 years, do we need a constant “Wake up Call” for the Bush voters?
If Bush wins, and I think there’s an even chance he won’t, the last thing the Dems should do is blame it on “ignorant people voting for Bush”. If they do, they deserve to be the minority party in the US. The Dems need to offer a strong candidate with a clear platform and pit that head to head with the Repbulicans. This whole BS line about “if only people were smarter (or better informed, or whatever), they wouldn’t vote for Bush” is a losing strategy.
First of all, the latest Reuters-Zogby poll shows Kerry ahead 47-44. If this is true, and if the undecideds break for the challenger about 3-1, then the final score looks like 54-46 for Kerry. Kerry WILL win, and will win huge.
This, at least, will almost certainly not happen. Less than half of the voting age population even voted last time (and more of them voted for Gore). The question will more accurately be “Why did 25% of the electorate vote for Bush?”
Nonsense. The terror-sponsoring nations (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc) are relatively wealthy countries – certainly richer than many nations that do not have any particular terrorist problem.
The bottom line of the evidence as I read it is that the current wave of terrorism is rooted in the deliberate inculcation of a culture of hatred by the ruling classes of those nations, for the purpose of diverting public resentment from themselves.
Well, I’m unconvinced that Bush will in fact win…I don’t think its ‘obvious’ by any stretch. Its neck and neck atm, and will remain so (IMO) until the fat lady sings.
I think John Mace cut to the heart of the matter. People who vote for Bush aren’t all ‘ignorant’ so there is no ignorance to be eradicated…they just have a different political view than you do. Just like people who vote for Kerry (if HE wins) won’t all be ignorant either.
Basically, IF Kerry loses, then the Dem’s need to come up with a better strategy for winning back the center of the country…because its obvious they are doing something wrong if they can’t beat Bush in THIS election (let alone in 2000). They may need to finally come to the realization that the US is NOT a left leaning liberal nation and we aren’t likely to be any time soon, and take a page from the Big Dog’s book…do what works. Clinton was the out and out master of this. Early on he realized that to be effective he needed to take a more centrist stance…and he DID, big time. He stole the Republicans thunder and made it his own. Slimy as I found the man, he was a VERY effective politician and President, and will probably be ranked in the top 10 by history.
Dems want the oval office again? Stop running Kerry/Edward/Dean/Kucinich types and run more moderate Clinton style presidents…moderate by US standards that is, not by European standards. Or keep getting spanked by the likes of GW. Choice is their’s.
Ummm, no, it’s ignorance alrighty. I mean, what does this “different political view” consist of. To vote Bush, you presumably buy a few things:
The war in Iraq was a good and just war and we’re doing just fine over there.
The Bush admin. has been a fine steward of the economy
The Bush admin. has been a fine steward of the environment
Bush is a better man than Kerry – smarter, braver, more resolute
…All of which are obviously and copiously not so by any reasonable objective standard. Sure, if you confine your worldview to FoxNews and right wing hate radio stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh, you might believe such things based on the information you have on hand, but that’s a form of stupidity and ignorance, too. (Just as any liberal who ignores Fox and Limbaugh in favor of total immersion in Salon.com and … whatever liberal broadcast media might exist … maybe that Al Franken network, if it’s in the area … is a form of stupidity and ignorance.)
I agree it’s a tactical error to call the people who support Bush stupid and ignorant folk … it’s not gonna make our message any easier to get across … but there’s no problem with admitting they are stupid and ignorant, when they ARE stupid and ignorant. Do you think Karl Rove thinks the people who get fooled again and again by his dirty tricks are intellectual giants? I don’t. Rove would never publicly call them morons, but I’m sure that’s what he thinks. How could he think otherwise, given the things he’s gotten away with?
Concentrating the wealth among a few individuals (relatively speaking) may place a country high upon the list of wealthy countries, but does not change the vast poverty and alienation from the powerbrokers of said country with the rest of the population.
Wrong. Ignoring for a moment that there are other issues besided these, you are offering a false dichotomy on your items 1-4. The correct way to look at these is which candidate reflects your views on the situation. For example. Bush might not have been a “fine steward of the economy” in my book, but Kerry’s position could be worse.
