"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Printable View
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Yeah, I'd love to take the same positive outlook, but I really won't enjoy fighting in Tehran for "hearts and minds" in 2006 and I figure a lot of women won't prefer a coat-hanger to a planned parenthood clinic. Spin to make yourself feel better, but don't be suckered into thinking that we didn't lose A LOT in this electionQuote:
Originally Posted by watersnowdirt
(and I feel like I went to an Irish wake last night, that open bar dismantled me)
i agree. how bush (also an "elitist" in red-neck disguise) tricks middle america into providing tax breaks for the wealthy while pushing policies that hurt the very people that vote for him is beyond me. here is a good article that essentially validates your point:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrw
Op-Ed Columnist: Living Poor, Voting Rich
November 3, 2004
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
In the aftermath of this civil war that our nation has just
fought, one result is clear: the Democratic Party's first
priority should be to reconnect with the American
heartland.
I'm writing this on tenterhooks on Tuesday, without knowing
the election results. But whether John Kerry's supporters
are now celebrating or seeking asylum abroad, they should
be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factory
workers and waitresses who ended up voting - utterly
against their own interests - for Republican candidates.
One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last
few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor
to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Democrats are
still effective on bread-and-butter issues like health
care, but they come across in much of America as arrogant
and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to
values.
"On values, they are really noncompetitive in the
heartland," noted Mike Johanns, a Republican who is
governor of Nebraska. "This kind of elitist, Eastern
approach to the party is just devastating in the Midwest
and Western states. It's very difficult for senatorial,
Congressional and even local candidates to survive."
In the summer, I was home - too briefly - in Yamhill, Ore.,
a rural, working-class area where most people would benefit
from Democratic policies on taxes and health care. But many
of those people disdain Democrats as elitists who empathize
with spotted owls rather than loggers.
One problem is the yuppification of the Democratic Party.
Thomas Frank, author of the best political book of the
year, "What's the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won
the Heart of America," says that Democratic leaders have
been so eager to win over suburban professionals that they
have lost touch with blue-collar America.
"There is a very upper-middle-class flavor to liberalism,
and that's just bound to rub average people the wrong way,"
Mr. Frank said. He notes that Republicans have used
"culturally powerful but content-free issues" to connect to
ordinary voters.
To put it another way, Democrats peddle issues, and
Republicans sell values. Consider the four G's: God, guns,
gays and grizzlies.
One-third of Americans are evangelical Christians, and many
of them perceive Democrats as often contemptuous of their
faith. And, frankly, they're often right. Some evangelicals
take revenge by smiting Democratic candidates.
Then we have guns, which are such an emotive issue that
Idaho's Democratic candidate for the Senate two years ago,
Alan Blinken, felt obliged to declare that he owned 24 guns
"and I use them all." He still lost.
As for gays, that's a rare wedge issue that Democrats have
managed to neutralize in part, along with abortion. Most
Americans disapprove of gay marriage but do support some
kind of civil unions (just as they oppose "partial birth"
abortions but don't want teenage girls to die from
coat-hanger abortions).
Finally, grizzlies - a metaphor for the way
environmentalism is often perceived in the West as
high-handed. When I visited Idaho, people were still
enraged over a Clinton proposal to introduce 25 grizzly
bears into the wild. It wasn't worth antagonizing most of
Idaho over 25 bears.
"The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted
Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social
issues to get the public to stop looking at what's
happening to them economically."
"What we once thought - that people would vote in their
economic self-interest - is not true, and we Democrats
haven't figured out how to deal with that."
Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge, and John
Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own
working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly
in denial.
To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don't need
to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the
way. But a starting point would be to shed their
inhibitions about talking about faith, and to work more
with religious groups.
Otherwise, the Democratic Party's efforts to improve the
lives of working-class Americans in the long run will be
blocked by the very people the Democrats aim to help.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/op...2&ei=1&en=c0ed
46fd7d0af01a
Couldn't help but notice how the electoral vote breakdown coincides with the general location of the Mason-Dixon Line:
Electoral Vote Breakdown
Stupid fucking rednecks.
suckered??? Did you read my post at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrockpow
I've worked on social change issues and for non-profits for 13 years. I'm on the board of two major environmental groups. I give about 5% of my income to progressive organizations. I have voted in every election since I turned 18.
I probably hate Bush as much as anyone on this board. But I've also worked on enough issues and campaigns to know what it feels like to lose. It sucks. It's depressing. It feels shitty. It feels like the world might end. But if you indulge in those emotions for too long and you don't get back up and start the fight again, we're all screwed.
It's not about being naive or being suckered. It's about the two paths that we all face right now. The first path is to let the depression of losing what we all considered to be the most important election we'd seen completely take away your power.
The second is to do whatever you need to do to mourn for a couple of days, but then to stand up and fight back.
To me, that's the only option.
Why is Kerry more "elitist" than Bush?Quote:
Originally Posted by mrw
Because he comes from money? No, wait...
Because he went to Yale? No, wait...
Because he is from old New England blood? No, wait...
How the hell did Rove spin this?
So, you're saying democrats shouldn't be on the next ticket. Works for me!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by cmsummit
Nice job on taking my quote out of context/content. MORON!Quote:
Originally Posted by 1080Rider
What was it like voting for JFK twice? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by watersnowdirt
Honestly guys. This isn't the first time the country has been divided as closely or far apart. We're all young, the first time I voted in a presidential election was 1996. I'd imagine I'm in the middle of the pack on this board as far as that goes.
WSD, it sounds like you do the same things as my mother. She has been a volunteer coordinator for United Way, the School District, and is now at Hospice. I spent my formative years marching in parades for Democrats. My best friends mom loves to tell the story and show the picture of me riding my dad's shoulders at a protest outside Rocky Flats in the early 80s. I went to college and had a reflexive distaste for the pervasive liberalism spewed by the professors. I went to a fairly conservative private school. I cannot imagine CU, Cal, or UVM.
Liberals hated Reagan, intensely. Liberals hated Nixon, intensely. Conservatives hated Carter. Conservatives ended up hating Clinton. Life went on.
You all lost last night. It is not doomsday. The following is a good read:
No Matter What Happens, Relax
By George F. Will
Tuesday, November 2, 2004; Page A21
During tonight's tumult of election returns, remember:
If, for the fourth consecutive election, neither candidate wins a popular vote majority, relax. There were four consecutive such elections from 1880 to 1892. In 1876 a candidate (Samuel Tilden) got 51 percent -- and lost (to Rutherford Hayes). Six elections since World War II produced plurality presidents -- 1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996, 2000. Woodrow Wilson was consequential although he won his first term with just 41.8 percent and his second with 49.2 percent.
If today's election produces vast consequences from slender margins, relax. This is not unusual. In 1916 a switch of 1,771 votes in California would have enabled Charles Evans Hughes to rescue the nation from President Wilson. In 1948 a switch of 30,262 votes in California, Illinois, Ohio and Nevada would have replaced President Harry Truman with Tom Dewey. In 1968 a switch of 53,034 votes in New Jersey, New Hampshire and Missouri would have denied Richard Nixon an electoral vote majority and, because George Wallace won 46 electoral votes, the House probably would have awarded the presidency to Hubert Humphrey. In 1976 a switch of 9,246 votes in Ohio and Hawaii would have enabled President Gerald Ford to beat Jimmy Carter with 270 electoral votes -- but 1.5 million fewer popular votes than Carter had.
If George W. Bush loses, relax. Turbulence is normal. Since 1900, not including Bush, there have been 18 presidents, of whom only five served a full eight years or more. Only 11 of the 42 presidents before Bush served two consecutive terms. Between 1837 and Wilson, only Grant served two consecutive terms. If Bush wins, this will be what the poet William Carlos Williams called "the rare occurrence of the expected." All the winners of elections after 1960 will have been from the Sunbelt -- Georgia, Arkansas, Texas, Southern California.
This is the first wartime election since 1972, when the president presiding over a divisive war trounced an antiwar candidate in 49 states. In wartime 1968, the nation narrowly decided to change the party holding the presidency. In 1944 the commander in chief won a fourth term, but with only 53 percent of the vote, and in 1864 the president might have lost if Atlanta had not been captured before the election.
Watch Nevada. Even though in 1864 it had only one-fifth the population required for statehood, it was admitted to the Union to give an embattled wartime president three extra electoral votes. Bush could lose Nevada's five votes because of his decision -- wise but unpopular -- to proceed with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
Watch Maine's 2nd Congressional District. Maine, like Nebraska, allocates an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. Kerry will win Maine, but Bush could win the 2nd. Watch Ohio. If Bush carries the state hit hardest by job losses, can we retire the canard that Americans "vote their pocketbooks''? Many issues often trump banal calculations of short-term material well-being.
So watch the black vote. If, as several pre-election polls suggested, Bush doubles the 9 percent of African American votes he won in 2000, it will be partly because efforts were made, especially on black radio, to use Bush's stance on same-sex marriage to appeal to the black community's cultural conservatism.
In 2002 Bush became the second president since the Civil War whose party increased its House and Senate seats in the middle of his first term -- although a switch of just 82,763 votes out of 75.7 million votes cast would have given Democrats control of the House and Senate. If today Republicans again gain seats, this strength will beget strength: It will trigger the retirement of some congressional Democrats disheartened by the prospect of protracted minority status.
If Democrat Brad Carson defeats Republican Tom Coburn for Oklahoma's open Senate seat while Bush is carrying the state by, say, 30 points, this remarkable ticket-splitting might lead, mercifully, to abandonment of the blue state-red state dichotomy. Concerning which, if Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle is reelected in South Dakota, a great anomaly will continue: four Democratic senators from the two Dakotas, where Bush's 2000 victories were by an average of 25 percent.
Perhaps this will reconcile liberals to the fact that 16 percent of Americans elect half the Senate. Of course, some egalitarians will continue to consider the Constitution's provision regarding the composition of the Senate an unconstitutional violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
Bush, like Kerry, went to Yale. Bush, like Kerry, pledged Skull and Bones. Bush and Kerry are the same elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrw
And guess which one was a MALE CHEERLEADER at Phillips Andover Academy, the high school for the New England elite? That's right, Bush!
http://www.celebrity-pics.net/dp/files/2-22.jpg
Bush is no more an "aw, shucks" fundamentalist Texan than I am British royalty.
You've just proven that you are dumb and uninformed.
It's that damn drawl.Quote:
Originally Posted by 365wp
Texas Gaper, "W sounds jus like pa and Billy-Bob, he be gud peeple then".
Funny how Bush Sr., Jeb, etc. don't have an accent.
http://www.allfunpix.com/humor/pics4/jesus_loves.jpgQuote:
JESUS!!......Jesus will save us all!
[QUOTE=Spats Since you can't see that, you've proven that you are dumb and uninformed, and so is everyone who believes your reasoning.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, Lenin breath... by your standards, I qualify as one of the great unwashed and uneducated, ignorant to the ways of the world but, my guys are in power and your guys have been uniformly rejected by the largest majority in recent history. Don't despair though, you're in good company. Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand and Whoopy Goldberg are also suffering from a reality check :biggrin:
I see nothing has changed.
For the crowd that states "you voted for Bush???" you must be a moron, a stupid fuck, a religious psycho, or obviously a dumb hick from middle America...who now, are so ashamed, embarrased, leaving the USA, and whining like 3rd grade girl's.
Self loathing, Self-rightous, elitism, and doom+gloom never sells to the masses.
This is the #1 reason I have not voted Democratic since Clinton's 2nd term. I don't want to be associated with people that have this outlook on life. It's weak, pathetic, and will always be associated with LOSERS!!!
I'm serious, how do you fucks that live like this wake up in the morning!
So right and wrong are decided by how many people agree with you?Quote:
Originally Posted by mrw
Also: you completely ignored the facts in my post and started name-calling. That's because you're wrong and the facts support me. Thanks for proving my point. :D
---
PS: I edited my post before your reply to it because I thought better of my generalization -- I'm arguing with you, not the world, who might have other reasons. Also I found that great cheerleader picture of W.
...so I've been hearing that a Kerry loss primes Hillary Clinton for 2008.
That was my attempt at a little Johnny Carson humor. No offense was meant. The pic is not showing on my sorry assed computerQuote:
Originally Posted by Spats
I hear only Rosie O'Donnell can prime Hillary :DQuote:
Originally Posted by FNG
I'm glad to know that your decision on who should lead the free world is based on your perception of whether the other people voting for him are "cool", and not on the policies of the candidates or their records in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteepnDeep
Get it straight: This is politics, not professional sports. Voting for the winning side does not make you cool or get you any special treatment from the law.
Thank you, again, for proving my point for me. :D
Sorry WSD if you took offense at the suckered comment. I love internal rationalizations/denial - a lot of times it is the only way to cope with things. I guess I just needed to piss in your cheerios this morning - sorry for that. My main point was just that this was important (and maybe more important than at other times) b/c we are at a turning point for our international situation AND economy. Add in the fact that this president possibly has more power than any single American EVER and he's shown no interest in creatively dealing with anything other than terrorism (and on that front I don't agree with the think big plan).
MrG: congrats on this election (although you did say you'd bet money Kerry only carries DC and Mass). What this came down to is that W connected to people's guts and even the middle felt that, Kerry did not do enough to win. I honestly am worried about going to Iran, Syria and N. Korea - I know only Dems have actually brought up the draft, but getting numbers up just with $$$ seems unlikely if some new crisis pops its head up. I hope for the best, prepare for the worst in the next four years.
No fucking kidding. The demise of the clean air act, the push for protected trees to be chopped down (no trees, no fires, right?!)...the kyoto treaty. etc. I'm not a one-issue voter, but this damn well desribes a main reason I didn't vote Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by freshies
OKAY, okay, skiing, SKIING!!! I don't think we can help it today, though.
Back to skiing............................................ ....
What about uneducated-college-grads & regular-churchgoing-educated-college-graduates??Quote:
Originally Posted by cmsummit
Oh, Ok.Damn 10 character.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewood_skier
Thank you, but I still think you're not getting me. There's no "denial" going on with me. I know full well what 4 more years of W means. I'm a woman, an activist, a progressive, and I live in San Francisco. You don't get a hell of a lot more liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrockpow
My point was simply that if we all we do is sit here on the TGR board and talk about doomsday, that's all we're gonna get. I know that most of us are beyond bummed by what happened last night. I know at least a handful of us work on social change issues, and the rest of us are at least committed to them, and with a few electoral votes we saw much of our work getting trashed. Last night was a HUGE step backwards for the progressive movement.
But I just can't bear to see people throw in the towel. Now is the time to fight, not back away.
Just take all the energy that I"ve seen people sling at Max and Blurred and start slinging at the monkey running our country who truly deserves it. If everyone here allocated 1/3 the time we do on this board to stir up shit in the outside world. we'd be well on way to ensuring that this doesn't happen again in 4 years.
And maybe a draft wouldn't be such a bad thing - I can guarantee that those pricks who keep sending us into the wars that the poor in this nation are fighting would think twice about sending us into so many wars if they knew that rich kids might starting getting killed too....
I don't event know what I'm saying anymore. All I know is that I'm pissed, but I'm not going to let the religious right run our country, choose what I do with my body, stop by friends from getting married, and strip our civil liberties away.
Fack, now I'm really pissed.
..........
Here's an interesting article just posted on Slate.com, by William Saletan, the editor and chief political correspondent.
Democratic Values - How To Start Winning the Red States
by William Saletan
Hey, Democrats!
One silver lining in last night's debacle is that for another 24 hours or so, you might be open to rethinking what your party stands for. So, while I have your attention, here's an idea.
Go back to being the party of responsibility.
I'm not talking about scolding people. I'm talking about rewarding them. Be the party that rewards ordinary people who do what they're supposed to do—and protects them from those who don't.
If you think this kind of moral talk is anathema, you're the sort of person Karl Rove wants to be running the Democratic Party. Get out, or get a new attitude. Nearly 60 million people came out to vote for George W. Bush yesterday because they think that he represents their values and that you don't. Prove them wrong and you'll be the majority party again.
How? Start by changing the way you talk about pocketbook issues. Remember Bill Clinton's commitment to help people who "work hard and play by the rules"? Your positions on taxes and labor would be assets instead of liabilities if you explained them in moral terms. The minimum wage rewards work. Repealing the estate tax helps rich people get richer without risk or effort. Lax corporate oversight allows big businesses to evade taxes, deceive small investors, and raid pension funds.
Yes, Republicans will accuse you of waging a class war. I can see you cringing already. Get off your knees and fight. It is a war, but it isn't a class war. It's a culture war, and if you talk about it that way, you'll win it.
Some of you are dismayed by the emergence of a huge voting bloc of churchgoers. Stop viewing this as a threat, and start viewing it as an opportunity. Socially conservative blue-collar workers don't believe in the free market. They believe in the work ethic. Bush wins their votes by equating the free market with the work ethic. Show them where the free market betrays the work ethic, and they'll vote for the party of the work ethic—you—against the party of the free market.
What's your strongest issue among these voters? Outsourcing. Why? Because it's the issue on which you talk most naturally about right and wrong. It's also the issue on which you're most comfortable appealing to nationalism. That's another lesson you need to learn. People are voting Republican because they think you're weak. And, let's face it, you are weak. You say you'll defend this country, but then you go on about consulting other governments, cultivating goodwill, and playing well with others. You make a world full of terrorists sound like kindergarten.
Democrats in the Roosevelt-Truman years didn't have this problem. They called tyrants by their name, and they didn't sound like they were faking it. A party that believes in right and wrong at home must be assertive about right and wrong abroad. You need a serious antiterrorist agenda. Otherwise, when you object to a war like Iraq, you sound like the peace party.
I'm not asking you to act like you care about this stuff. I'm asking you to care about it for real, and not just at election time. When a Republican president runs a TV ad accusing you of failing to protect us from wolves, you should be able to point out that he's the one who emptied our shotgun into a fox, leaving us helpless against the wolves. And you should sound credible saying it.
Once you eliminate the sincerity gap between you and the Republicans on national security, you can exploit the reverse sincerity gap between you and them on responsibility. Think about the values of our armed forces: shared risk, shared sacrifice, and reciprocal duty between officers and soldiers, regardless of race or class. Those are your values.
When leaders betray troops through bad planning and false pretenses for war, that should be your issue. When Republicans cut taxes for the rich while the nation is at war and the Treasury is empty, that should be your issue. When soldiers from poor families die while corporations skim from the war budget, that should be your issue. I've heard John Kerry talk about each of these issues separately, but each time, he sounded opportunistic. To be powerful, they must flow from a common message. That message is responsibility.
All the issues Democrats like to run on—education, the environment, the deficit, energy independence—would be vastly more powerful if united under a single theme. Clean up your mess. Take care of your children. Pay your debts. Stand on your own two feet. It all comes down to responsibility.
The Democrat who talks this way most naturally is John Edwards. (I know, I've got to stop advertising for him.) He's the one who frames every issue in terms of values. He's the one who argued during the presidential primaries that Republicans were favoring unearned wealth over work. He's the one who connected Republican tax policies to make the point. You don't have to teach him the language, because he learned it growing up in one of those red states.
So, there's your candidate, and there's your message. Now go and live it, so you won't have to fake it.
I think a Nixon like legacy is more likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrw