Why the left alienates voters

[ExTank]

I traded them in for a motorcycle.

I think I came out ahead in the deal.

[Acsenray]

@Shodan

I swear, you can’t make this stuff up as fast as the Left makes it real.

I swear, you have no idea who that guy is or why he’s holding up that sign.

What’s that A-with-a-circle-thru-it thing? Is that for atheism? It was on a poster or flag or something about “No Gods, no Masters” or something.

It’s a symbol for anarchy. Which blows your theory that it has anything to do with the left.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

You think I should speak respectfully of this man? He stood there and told me he was absitively posolutely sure about Saddam’s evil designs and dreadful peril. Good people are dead as a result. What has this man done that I should accord him anything but my contempt? He is a firm and unwavering leader? So was Custer. He imagines himself another Churchill? Does the word “Gallipoli” ring any bells?

Truth be know, “GeeDubya” is actually pretty gentle, considering my true opinion. I scorn him lightly, so as not to confer any undeserved dignity. He has led us into a disaster, and his only solution is that we “stay the course”. He may well be right, it may well be that the only way out of this shitstorm is through. But it didn’t have to be this way, a bit of patience, a bit of doubt, and all we would have suffered is embarassment.

Well, this thread is called, “Why the left alienates voters.” I would argue that the refusal to refer to the President of the United States as “Mr. Bush,” or even simply “Bush,” is one reason.

After Mr. Clinton lied under oath, I was furious at him. No matter that the investigation that led him there was politically motivated, the chief executive of the United States of America should respect the rule of US law and not lie under oath. But I was able to express that fury and disdain without calling him names.

Now, you may offer one of the classic rejoinders: Mr. Clinton’s lies were about a blowjob; Mr. Bush’s lies got people killed.

1. Bush did not lie. He was certain, yes, and he said he was certain. But he was wrong. There are people on this message board that averred with certainty that Bush would not be re-elected. They were wrong. Did they lie? No. They were certain, but ultimately mistaken.

2. His actions in Iraq, to me, were sound, even in the absence of weapons of mass destruction. While I obviously feel it would have been far better for him to lay out a ratinale for the invasion that did not depend exclusively on WMDs and let the country buy into that, the fact remains that creating a democracy in Iraq meant the immediate short-term gain of removing a murderous bastard from the helm and in the long-term creating a stable base from which other democracies will flow. I support it, even thought it means that both US and Iraqi lives will be lost in the process. That’s a terrible price to pay, but on balance worthwhile.

3. Even if you completely reject the rationale in (2) - which a reasonable person may certainly do - there’s still no reason to not simply call him “Mr.” as I do for all the people whose politics and actions I don’t approve of.

[DrDeth]

@Bricker

Why is it that I can manage to refer to every single Democratic politician by their actual name? Senator Kerry. Senator Kennedy. Senator Daschle. President Clinton. Senator Clinton. See?

In contrast, you, and others on your side, use “Shurb,” “GeeDubya,” and the like.

Altahough “shrub” is stupid, and those who use it are beneath contempt- “W” or “Gee-Dubya” make perfect sense, since there was another President George Bush, you know. In fact, I believe that “Gee-Dubya” was his nickname since college times, and close freinds and members of his family called him that.

So, I buy “W” or any close versions of that. Just like I am OK with “Jack Kennedy” instead of “John F Kennedy”.

[joyfool]

Just the one point…

@Bricker

1. Bush did not lie. He was certain, yes, and he said he was certain. But he was wrong. There are people on this message board that averred with certainty that Bush would not be re-elected. They were wrong. Did they lie? No. They were certain, but ultimately mistaken.

Isn’t there a difference though, when you are the president, to NOT be certain (and just merely “wrong”), and yet other people’s lives depend on your decision making processes? Here on the Dope, when members were certain that Bush wouldn’t be re-elected, that would be the same as the BoSox fans knowing they were finally going to beat The Curse and win the World Series.

That is harmless and akin to a lot of folks’ concept of “free will” (IE: in the bible when it was predicted someone would behave a certain way – Peter would deny Christ 3 times before the cock crowed – he still had the “choice” despite what I’d call predestination), doesn’t mean there should be any REAL stock put into it, because it’s truly more of a hope.

(Argh, does that mean then that my analogy is out of place or just sucks? Hopefully, you’ll understand what I mean, if not, I’ll do my best to clear it up and not make an ass out of my mangled explanations.)

In that case, it’s no big deal. But when you place your absolute certainty in something and other’s rely on your judgment in good faith, especially when their very existence is at stake, that’s definitely more than just being “wrong” and I MUCH higher standard should be held. IMHO, of course.

Could you tell me your thoughts on this? Thank you.

[DrDeth]

@Bricker

Now, you may offer one of the classic rejoinders: Mr. Clinton’s lies were about a blowjob; Mr. Bush’s lies got people killed.

1. Bush did not lie. He was certain, yes, and he said he was certain. But he was wrong. There are people on this message board that averred with certainty that Bush would not be re-elected. They were wrong. Did they lie? No. They were certain, but ultimately mistaken.
   .

Yes but- it was clear that he only accepted the advice and intelligence that agreed with what he wanted to do- Invade Iraq, and get back at Saddam. He certainly could have let Blix have a little more time, and if he had, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Since he “closed his mind to the whole truth” he did decieve the American Electorate. That is a form of “lying”, and it’s one that cost America far more than “I did not have sex with that woman”.

[Live_Better_Electrically]

@ralph124c

Add to that , most leftists are intellectual snobs, who despise the working class that they supposedly admire.

That’s a generalization, but there is some tension here. The problem is that the sphere of public discourse and informed self-governance as we know it grew out of the bourgeois middle class during Restoration-era England, and we are losing our middle class and, accordingly, the informed self-governance and discourse on which Democracy depends. Now we have a huge evangelical and right wing working class supporting an increasingly authoritarian government who, in exchange, gives them a few hateful crumbs via the “culture war.” So the “snobbery,” if you can call it that, has to be viewed in relation to this evangelical and hard-right faction of the GOP that is simply ignorant and a threat to Democracy.

To quote from GYWO, “If ‘elitist’ just means ‘not the dumbest motherfucker in the room,’ I’ll be an elitist!”

[Gyrate]

@blowero

“Fuck Middle America” - He he, that’s pretty good. I was kinda thinking the same thing.

Yeah – “Look, Ma, I’m a rebel! Go me!”

Whatta bunch of immature twats.

I had to smile at the picture of the flag being burned.* Not because I agree with either the sentiment or the action (I don’t), but because at the moment we live in a country where you can burn the flag and curse the President, and the people who disagree with you will just shrug, dismiss you as a bunch of immature twats, and go back to what they were doing. That’s freedom, folks.
*Clip and save for later misquoting!

[Blalron]

@Gyrate

Yeah – “Look, Ma, I’m a rebel! Go me!”

Whatta bunch of immature twats.

I had to smile at the picture of the flag being burned.* Not because I agree with either the sentiment or the action (I don’t), but because at the moment we live in a country where you can burn the flag and curse the President, and the people who disagree with you will just shrug, dismiss you as a bunch of immature twats, and go back to what they were doing. That’s freedom, folks.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

[MLS]

@elucidator

Ah, hell, MLS, just when I’m ready to coast along, you gotta post a brown confection of half-truths and slanders. Ah, well, “once more into the breech, dear friends…”

Half-truth. He most assuredly did protest the war, and most assuredly did assert that American soldiers were involved in various deplorable actions. And they were. The word “routine” is where the question breaks down, since no one has any hard facts. The only deplorable acts we know about are the one’s we actually found out about. The best definition I can offer as to what Kerry meant by “routine” was that it was no longer shocking. A “Free Fire Zone” was routine, as well as being in direct contravention of the Geneva accords. Did I mention reprehensible?

Nonsense. The charge that Kerry accused all soldiers of war crimes is based on an inflated rationale: American policy was criminal, a soldier was by definition a criminal as a participant. But you miss the essential point: Kerry (and I, for that matter) was enraged that patriotic men sworn to service were made into war criminals when the country they swore to protect dishonored itself. The fresh faced kids drafted into the meat grinder didn’t leave here war criminals, and most didn’t come back war criminals. But some did, and the blame lies with the men who sent them there.

Check your sources. You are offering as incontrovertible fact testimony that is not as certain as you make it out to be. Be that as it may, the NV interrogators were brutal and cruel men who would have used anything to induce suffering. I am quite sure that you don’t mean to imply that this was done with Kerry’s approval and cooperation? I have no reason, thus far, to think you entirely beneath contempt.

A day late, but I found a cite that may clarify this issue somewhat.

Here is an article by Stephen Morris, a fellow at John Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Why Vietnam Invaded Cambodia.

He says, in part,

Kerry is remembered and reviled by many veterans for his 1971 speech before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he accused American soldiers of committing widespread atrocities and war crimes. He specifically asserted that U.S. soldiers were not only carrying out the cruelest tortures, with full knowledge of their commanders at the highest level, but were also “murdering” 200,000 Vietnamese each year. Many of Kerry’s sources — the witnesses at the Winter Soldier Investigation paid for by Jane Fonda — were later exposed as frauds who had never served in Vietnam. Kerry’s blanket libel of American troops was in stark contrast with his silence over the well-documented record of atrocities by the Communists, which were a matter of policy.

When Kerry joined the Senate in 1985 one of his early appointments as legislative assistant on foreign affairs was Gareth Porter — an academic with a long record of denying any evidence of major Communist atrocities in Indochina. Porter’s 1976 book, Cambodia. Starvation and Revolution, denied that the Khmer Rouge holocaust was taking place. Of course Kerry himself had been conspicuously silent on postwar Khmer Rouge atrocities while they were happening.

Whether you like Kerry or not, or disagree with Morris’s assertions, this should clarify what the issue is.

[capacitor]

The Democrats, in hindsight, should have had the convention in New York City.

[elucidator]

Well, heck, MLS if your going to use National Review on line as a source, why not use the one where they accuse Kerry of being a KGB plant? I mean, why screw around with minor lies and slanders?

And, oh…that line about how “many” of the Winter Soldier testifiers were impostors and liars? You might want to double check that. Theres another poster here who likes to present right-wing hooey as gospel, he gets embarassesd pretty frequently. Wouldn’t want that happening to a nice fellow like you.

[blowero]

@Gyrate

Yeah – “Look, Ma, I’m a rebel! Go me!”

Whatta bunch of immature twats.

You’re so right - calling people “twats” is much more mature.

[Shodan]

@acsenray

I swear, you have no idea who that guy is or why he’s holding up that sign.

I would think the sign speaks for itself. Although you are correct, I have no idea who the person is. I am simply assuming he is an immature twit, seething with resentment at a political system that does not pay the attention to him that his father never did.

@acsenray

It’s a symbol for anarchy. Which blows your theory that it has anything to do with the left.

Actually, if you look at the second picture down in the OP’s link, you might notice that this anarchy symbol (thanks for the explanation) is on a sign reading, “The Left Will Rise”. So I still think my theory is valid.

Regards,
Shodan

[Sevastopol]

@Bricker

1. Bush did not lie. He was certain, yes, and he said he was certain. But he was wrong. There are people on this message board that averred with certainty that Bush would not be re-elected. They were wrong. Did they lie? No. They were certain, but ultimately mistaken.

And yet no-one else * ever* claimed to be - certain - . Then we saw the evidence Bush purportedly relied on. It was “heavily caveated,” with not a hint of certainty. So where did Bush’s pov come from?

One option is that the archangel Gabriel spoke directly, in verses, with the President on the dormant, but gathering threat in Mesopotamia. There was a misleading as instead of the archangel it was Satan in angelic guise. That is one option that exonerates the President.

As an alternative, it may well be possible that the Bush team elected to represent the evidence as something other than it was. This, in order to advance a policy goal they had determined upon. What wordy sentences. Luckily these may be summarised to a single word: Lies.

@Bricker

2. His actions in Iraq, to me, were sound, even in the absence of weapons of mass destruction.

Which meant the absence of lawful backing and in consequence any hope of legitimacy. By which the democratic project, such as it was, was doomed from the start.

[MLS]

@elucidator

Well, heck, MLS if your going to use National Review on line as a source, why not use the one where they accuse Kerry of being a KGB plant? I mean, why screw around with minor lies and slanders?

And, oh…that line about how “many” of the Winter Soldier testifiers were impostors and liars? You might want to double check that. Theres another poster here who likes to present right-wing hooey as gospel, he gets embarassesd pretty frequently. Wouldn’t want that happening to a nice fellow like you.

You may have missed some context here. A question was asked about what the issue was. I have tried to clarify that. What you think about the relative veracity and reliability of the contributors is a separate matter.

Not that it matters, but I’m not a “fellow.” I’m a Security Mom.

[Gyrate]

@blowero

You’re so right - calling people “twats” is much more mature.

[malkavia]

@elucidator

So, lets get some sort of calibration here, Lonesome. Is intellectual snobbery, as dreadful as it is, worse than lying to start a war? Got any pictures of kids with thier limbs blown off due to liberal’s intellectual snobbery? Those flag-draped coffins they’re unoading…and will continue to unload, since you guys got your mandate…those are the result of lefty intellectual snobbery? Think Mr. Hoffer and Mr. Orwell would agree?

Well, its yours now. Congratulations. You had the choice, and you ratified it, gave it your official okey-dokey. Now it belongs to you. Right now, somewhere north of a thousand. What do you think? 2,000? 5,000? 10,000? Of our best and brightest?

We tried, you wouldn’t listen. It belongs to you now.

applaud

May I have your permission to post this quote on my livejournal?

[malkavia]

@Bricker

Why is it that I can manage to refer to every single Democratic politician by their actual name? Senator Kerry. Senator Kennedy. Senator Daschle. President Clinton. Senator Clinton. See?

Because you’re special, Bricker, because you’re special.

[furt]

@malkavia

May I have your permission to post this quote on my livejournal?

Oh. I busted a gut laughing to that one. I think Bricker will, too.