Examining the results of the presidential race, we’re now faced with an electorate - motivated by a combination of fear, hatred, and religious/cultural intolerance - that seek to destroy the very heart of our democracy through the voting booth.
Let’s call it “suicide by ballot.”
Fifty-nine million Americans - a slight but sufficient majority - will not have the luxury to claim retroactive ignorance in the years to come. George W. Bush, in his first term as president, showed us his vision of America - where capitalism means corporate welfare and unbridled greed, where U.S. soldiers are handmaidens to Halliburton, where the anti-abortion candidate slaughters Iraqi children. With another term in office - coupled with Republican gains in the House and Senate, and the attendant freedom to replace retiring Supreme Court justices with radical activists - America’s dark fate has been sealed for decades to come.
It’s the will of the slim majority. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman writes, the Bush supporters “don’t just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don’t just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.”
Who are these people?
They support the separation of church and state in matters of taxation, but believe we should have Christian prayers and the Ten Commandments in public schools and courtrooms. They believe in God and Jesus and a blissful afterlife in Heaven, but are irrationally afraid of facing death in a terrorist attack.
They believe the government has no business keeping track of gun purchases, but it’s okay for the Justice Department to monitor your medical history and check your library interests, to search your house without your knowledge. They argue for “less government interference” in people’s lives, while simultaneously arguing that women should be legally forced to endure a full-term pregnancy, and that gay Americans should be denied their civil rights.
Indeed, homophobia runs rampant throughout this country and is a major issue among Mr. Bush’s constituency. On Tuesday, proposed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages passed overwhelmingly everywhere they appeared on the ballot. Nine of these states voted in favor of Mr. Bush, while in the other two - Oregon and Michigan - the measures passed, but with significantly smaller margins of victory.
The key state was Ohio, where Mr. Bush’s slim majority - which put him over the top electorally - may well have been the result of the anti-gay measure. It’s been credited with the strong Republican turnout in the areas of the state dominated by evangelical Christians.
This nonsense is getting old. Bush needed just about every single state he won to get the 270. Every state with more than 18 or so votes was a critical state for him, and losing any one of them (not just the last one to report, Ohio) would have lost him the election. “Blaming” Ohio is fucking dumb.
BTW this isn’t against you, MS. It’s against the author of that article.
I dunno, he ran up a 3 million vote margin. On technical rules, he might have lost, but relying on Democrats to win by “cheating” with the EC isn’t a good plan.
Except looking at things right now…let’s say the GOP drops the racism entirely. Hell, it’s not like they really need it anymore. And say that they start to make culture war inroads with Hispanics, or god forbid, blacks.
Please take this to one of the other 98273498 threads on “what do Democrats need to do now?” This was supposed to be a thread about any right wingers who look back and say “whoops!” which I derailed into a rant about people calling the final state the “key state” when it clearly isn’t.
As much as it always sounds bad to blame the candidate, while I respect Kerry and found myself warming to him as the campaign wore on, I can certainly see why he might not have tipped the balance just a bit more amongst those voters who really don’t pay attention to the issues and vote on who they think is more, well, charming.
We keep hearing about how “morals” was an important decision maker for some voters, particularly on the Bush side, and I have to wonder if that always means what we believe to be stances on things like gay marriage or abortion.
Could it also just mean “I think X is just less truthful than Y”? If so, then Kerry might have converted more of those people had he not have to face dumb things like the Swift Vote Vets, who rational voters would have discounted, yet probably brought a vision of Kerry as a “traitor” and “liar” to enough of the “forget issues, who’s less ‘icky’ sounding” voters to counteract the same type of voters who did the same thing for Bush.
If the campaign consisted more of “Debates Kerry”, who was forced to keep things relatively short and simple due to the 2 minute time limits, instead of the long and rambling answers that were technically correct, yet sounded vaguely flip-floppy to someone not actually paying attention, I think he would have been more than strong enough to reverse the turnout, especially as close as it was.
As that one Salon article suggested, more than anything else, including radical changes to the democratic platform some have suggeste, the democrats need a candidate who can give strong, yet concise, answers to questions asked of him, if only to prevent the “well, I just don’t know about him” response Kerry had in entirely too many people.
The GOP doesn’t support racism directly; rather, it’s endemic. It’s the party of choice for racists just because the Democrats actively pursue equality. The GOP will never be able to “drop the racism” as long as there are two parties and the other one is liberal. You can’t drop your constituency.
Oh for cryin’ out loud, that’s just dense. He mysteriously thinks that
the first popular majority in 16 years
an electoral college win for a second term
the ouster of the democratic minority leader
widening majorities in the house and senate
incredibly add up to some kind of endorsement from the voting populace. I mean, how weird and confused could a guy be? :roll:[/quote] #1 and #2 on your list are features of any president re-elected without a strong third party challenger. Are you claiming that “mandate” simply means “re-election without third party interference”?
#3 was the result of a state election, also hardly reason to claim a national mandate.
#4 is traditionally referred to as “coat-tails”. But, hey, go with the newspeak if it suits you.
If democrats base their future strategy on the theory that the bulk of Bush’s supporters are homophobic god-nuts, then they will never elect another president. They’re done.
I’m glad that I’m not smart enough to think that those who disagree with me are either ignorant or nuts.
You can find it on just as many right-leaning forums, though.
Read what Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly or Anne Coulter say about liberals and tell me they’re equally guilty of calling the other side ignorant or nuts.
Look back at the leadup to the war and notice those of us who said it was a strategically unsound decision not only be called unpatriotic, but ignorant about the “real” threats in the world.
There’s just as much of this midnight son type bullshit going on in the right as the left, it’s just that the left is a handy target for the “anti-intellectual” attacks right now by latching on to their bullshit to call them “intellectual elite”.
