BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?

Subject: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:26 PM

Haven't seen that question asked yet. Thoughts?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:28 PM

While the turnout was huge, the youth vote did not come out in as large of numbers as expected.

Kerry focused too much on Iraq and not enough on the economy.

Kerry was slow in getting his message out.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:33 PM

Because he didn't get enough votes.

Perhaps he didn't get enough votes because he appeared to change his position on too many things, rather than have any clear, solid position on any given issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:34 PM

But from what I've been reading online this morning, the youth vote was the only constituency that he carried consistently. So I'm not sure you are right about that, Ron.

I've seen what I think is one very logical explanation over at the WSJ--that Kerry dredging up Vietnam in war time, was a VERY bad idea that blew up in his face.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:38 PM

He had a brilliant strategist who knew ho to get out the base of under-educated, logic-challenged voters:

"As people do better, they start voting like republicans - unless they have too much education and vote democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing"
Karl Rove
(George W. Bush's chief senior advisor and political strategist)

Nothing like calling your own constituents stupid!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,donuel
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:40 PM

Cheney told America exactly what to do

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/softwares.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:41 PM

Good analysis here

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:41 PM

... A UK Viewpoint ...

The 527 groups were new and some, at least, were very effective. Every politician claims to be against negative campaigning but almost be definition, that's all these "independant" groups can do. I think they are here to stay for some time and I expect every campaign to be more vicious than the one before for at least the next couple of elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:46 PM

No, it does no one any good to say that Kerry lost because the bad guys won. Kerry lost, and the Democrats lost control of governance, for a lot of reasons. Pretending like the Democrats haven't been decisively thrown out on their ass won't help the progressive cause in 2008.

The Dems are going to have to deal with the Democratic wing of the Democratic party AND the independent progressive left that gave them their votes...this time. I truly don't think the Democratic party can count on the progressive left within their own party, much less outside the dupoloy, on the independent progressive left, come 2008.

Nope. It's time to move hard left, folks. The battle lines, at least, are clearly drawn for us this morning. The PROGRESSIVE independent left WILL begin rebuilding itself today. If the Republicrats keep their cold shoulder up to the progressive left, they will become irrelevant within the next couple of election cycles.

The choices between progressive vs liberal vs conservative haven't been this stark in a long time. Change will come. The conservative old Republicrat warhorses like Mudcat's Anybody But Bushies are riding into the sunset this day, not the sunrise.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 12:46 PM

I heard a story on CBS that broke down various voting blocks. The youth block, while certainly strongly pro-Kerry, did not turn out in as large numbers as predicted based on the number of new registered voters.    While the overall turnout was high, the youth block did not turn out in the same proportion.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 01:04 PM

The reason they didn't is their cynicism about the process and the two party system, pure and simple.

I think these are the two main factors the Republicrats will have to contend with now, from katlaughing's link above:

"Among Kerry's successes last night was an apparent breakthrough among young voters." But their numbers were not sufficient to make a difference.

And, Broder and Morin write: "A pronounced shift came among moderates. In this polarized political climate, their share of the electorate dropped from about 50 percent in 2000 to about 45 percent this year, but the margin for the Democratic nominee increased from eight percentage points then to about 15 points now. Political independents also moved to the Democrats, with Kerry winning a slight majority whereas Gore had lost by a similarly small margin, according to surveys."

The constituencies that the Republicrats need to win are out there for the taking, but the party MUST move left, and it's old guard MUST go. We need youth and the progressive left to retake this nation from the fascists. That is plain as day when you look at the electoral college map too. It's the culutral divide. The Republicrats have been chickenshits. No guts to stand by their grassroots idealism, their grassroots base, and argue THEIR moral values.

So the progressive left will leave the Republicrats eating their dust in the next four years. Anyone who thinks the progressive left has been vanquished in this election, when Kerry couldn't even get out the youth vote or mobilize the moderates and independents that leaned his way, much less his traditional base in the Latino and African American communities?

It may only have been tens of thousands at the Million Worker March last month, but there is a very strong progressive left movement of truly united rainbow coalition (not run by Jesse) of communities of color, union activists, the radical left of the progressive movements' activists, Jews, anti-globalists, and young people. It has a tremendously strong core, with a tremendous amount of confidence. They don't just play the electoral politics game--they go straight for the heart of the beast. Believe me, a whole lot of them will show up in DC on Inauguration Day.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,cur'us spea'er & speller
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 01:08 PM

M'be coz there is noooo difference b'tween the twa o'em? Tha dif'rence is as wiiiiidddeee as a thin sheet o'paper. Tis my view.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 01:12 PM

That's right. A slim dime's worth of difference is what currently separates the Republicrats from the Republicans. But the global capitalist oligarchy never worried or fretted over this election for a second. They made a financial killing on the election business this year. Cleaned right up. Wall Street and the cultural fascists won big time.

The battle lines are drawn.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 01:35 PM

CNN television analysis asked if the Democrats had lost their church base. Rural, settled America especially seemed to go for Bush more on 'doing the right thing' than chasing the issues. Much of that might have been inevitable as people simply chose to stand behind the incumbant. It has to hurt a candidate running against someone in the white house with all the apparatus of government supporting him.

Further, Bush's campaign was very shrewd to move gay marriages into the mix. I think that increased the turnout of people interested in the status quo.

Still I have to say I'm dissapointed in the election and America. At least the winner also carried the popular vote. Sadly, I think this will legitimate a very bad president.

I hope the Democrats can get back on their feet as a party. I'm curious to see if they made any long term friends who will help them rock the senate & congress control.


Sigurd


Congratulations to the President. May his legacy not be our curse.

If you voted, congratulations to you too. Watch your votes and make them count.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 01:41 PM

Unless the Democratic party is willing to fight it out at the ballot box and on the street, as they did in the 1960s and early 1970s, all hope for the nation and the world is lost. The global capitalists will win it all.

And I think I hear those old refrains of "Which Side Are You On" in the background...

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 01:47 PM

I mean--wake UP Democratic left! This is what the freakin' Wall Street Journal is saying this morning:

Wall Street Journal: "Americans lined up to choose between George W. Bush and John Kerry -- and to flaunt their political divisions.

"White voters turned out to cast ballots for President Bush by double-digit margins. Hispanics backed Mr. Kerry by a similar margin, while blacks backed him by 10 to 1.

"Regular churchgoers were rock-solid behind the Republican incumbent. So were married voters with children and Americans who own guns. Those who care most about the threat of terrorism and issues related to moral values voted overwhelmingly to give the 43rd president a second term.

"But in a stark display of what separates the nation's political camps, voters who say they never attend church services sided just as strongly with the Democratic senator from Massachusetts. So did gay voters, single voters, union members and those most concerned about health care, jobs and Iraq."

But a clue Democrats! You lost because you abandoned not only your base, but your ideals!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 01:47 PM

People did not want Herman Munster for President.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 01:49 PM

I did!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 02:07 PM

Martin has a Munster fixation...

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 02:07 PM

Didn't work out so well for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 02:24 PM

I do like Muenster cheese.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: mg
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 02:44 PM

Are we to gather from that editorial that African Americans and Hispanics are somehow not church goers? Or they aren't married and have children? Does not compute. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 02:45 PM

I presume that GUEST is the same GUEST who has been vociferously campaigning for Ralph Nader. Okay, now that the dust has started to settle, I find that we are in agreement. Not on voting for Nader rather than Kerry in an attempt to beat Bush, but in the failure of the Democratic Party to provide a genuine progressive alternative.

Once again, Harry S. Truman is proven right. He said, "When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time." Kerry wasn't exactly acting like a Republican, but despite his intelligence and eloquence, he did fail to offer a clear and concisely articulated alternative to the Republicans. Once in office, he would have been quite different. He would have effected a reconciliation with allies whom Bush has alienated, and this would have gone a long way toward resolving the mess Bush created in the Middle East. He would have stopped the attacks on the social safety net and Social Security programs. He would not have invaded people's bedrooms to tell them what they can and cannot do. But he didn't convince the voters of that. It's not sufficient just to say "I have a plan." And then there is the very important matter of impending Supreme Court appointments. Now that Bush is back in, we'll just have to grit our teeth and wait and see how all of this plays out.

But it's not too early to start work on 2008. I see two possible courses. 1) go to work building up the Green Party into a real force rather than a small and essentially ineffectual minor party: or 2) follow the advice of Thom Hartmann:   get involved in the Democratic Party, knock heads and kick butt. Obviously, what they're doing now is not working. Remind them of what their values used to be and should still be, and give them a spine transplant.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,Shlio
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:09 PM

From the UK, backing Kerry, it seemed like he harped on about the same issues, and then it didn't help his cause when Bin Laden sent the video. He couldn't tand up and say, "Yes, Osama has just said everything that I've been saying about Bush throughout this campaign..."

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,Passerby
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:20 PM

Pretty simple really. As undesirable as Bush may be as a president, Kerry is worse yet. The Democrats had many worthwhile potential candidates. Kerry just wasn't one of them. Never did figure out why they couldn't see that ahead of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:22 PM

You know, I think the finger-pointing, Kerry did this wrong, Kerry did that wrong naysayers are full of it. Kerry received a huge, impressive number of votes by any measure...just not as many as George Bush. Bush mobilized weird coalitions of people afraid of gay unions and abortion: the Amish, the Born Again, the Mormon and the Orthodox Jew, for example.
Kerry's people did a superb job finding new voters, but Bush's people did a better one.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:23 PM

well, even if we were bound to lose anyway, I think we should have had a clearer choice, like Dean, or even Kuscinich, to make the final vote count more representative. I don't doubt 'some' voted for Bush & Co. because they didn't see any particular reason not to. (many did, and we are now worried what the very conservative govt. will now foist upon us. we shall see....

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:31 PM

Good to see you coming around, Don. One thing I haven't changed my mind on, is attempting to wrest control of the Democratic party back from it's DLC Republicrat wing. They will, especially in light of the coming siege from the left, only become more entrenched in their positions and control of the party's purse-strings, for all the elections in the forseeable future.

Nope, it is time to start organizing a vanguard movement outside any political party, Green, Democrat or any. Putting pressure on from within will only take the progressive causes so far, because the Democrats don't have anything left to bargain with--the blew the entire wad this election year.

It's going to be years, possibly generations, organizing in the political wilderness to reverse the grip of the global capitalist empire. And no one should think this will come without a bloody, violent fight. Look at what is happening as a result of the US' imperial reachm right now in the Middle East, in Africa, in much of Asia, and Latin America.    Look at the state of nuclear proliferation. The state of global warming and catastophic weather changes.

Nope, we are never going to be able to wrest control of the US away from the global capitalist oligarchy by voting alone. That is just too naive. We will have to organize, organize, organize outside the system, take the battle for the soul of the US to the streets, knowing we at least have the backing of the progressive movements around the world. International coalition building between the US and the rest of the world on the progressive left has just become hugely important. That kind of organizing can never be done within the two party political system of the US. We have to wrest control of the country away from the political class, not join them AGAIN, in hand wringing.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:37 PM

About 1/3 of a voter in this country thinks like you do, Guest based on Nader's .03%

I would suggest that you get a real job, find a nice person to marry, have kids, worship where and when you want, eat dinner in fine restuarants, pay your taxes, and enjoy your short little life.

Oh yes. Enjoy good music, also.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:42 PM

Aye Guest ...Brave words ,but youl have to be prepared to die for your principles.
They'll smear you with terrorism,anti American activities,and they wont hesitate to kill every one of you before their claws are prised from power....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:42 PM

It's beyond me how a nation can elect someone who says vote for "A guy who you can trust" after taking America to war on completely false pretenses. Now we all get to see his jerk smile for the next 4 years as America alienates itself from the rest of the world while Bush's USA does whatever they please to continue their agenda. Lord - help us.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: mg
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:46 PM

I think he does not have sound political instincts, in terms of campaigning, and that he was deliberately given bad advice in order to have him lose. And because he did not have sound poltiical instincts, or good advisors, he followed the bad advice. Somebody somewhere is gloating and it is not Karl Rove. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:55 PM

And if he does not have sound political instincts he deserved to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:56 PM

Kerry lost because there are more conservative Americans than left-leaning ones. And this time they all came out to vote.

Ron: I don't believe Kerry got all of the youth vote anyway. There are a lot of young conservatives who voted for Bush.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 03:59 PM

The youth of today are not at all like the youth we were.

They might just be better.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Fishpicker
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:02 PM

"Kerry dredging up Vietnam in war time, was a VERY bad idea that blew up in his face."


BINGO!


                         FP

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:04 PM

Mind boggling, isn't Arnie? I thought the same thing about Nixon's re-election, AFTER Watergate hit the front pages and the shenanigans of the Committee to Re-elect was exposed, not to mention Martha Mitchell screaming into the phone to the media, just before the president's men wrested the receiver out of her fist, and got the sedative administered...

"Aye Guest ...Brave words ,but youl have to be prepared to die for your principles.
They'll smear you with terrorism,anti American activities,and they wont hesitate to kill every one of you before their claws are prised from power....Ake"

You know, that doesn't really intimidate me, because as a radical leftist, I've been living with those possibilities for years. Back in my young turk, front line warrior days, that was much more of a concern for me personally than it is now that I'm happy to let the new generation take that leadership role, and take it to the streets. I do worry about it for my kids, though, who have long been politically active too. Art and politics...they are the family biz.

Meantime, I'm contented being one of the farts hanging back in the movement offices (more often home offices these days, at least in my case), or calling the union offices, the lawyers' offices, and the alternative media outlets from the comfort of the car cell phone, while trying to chase down where the marchers have been redirected to in their cat and mouse games with the cops. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:09 PM

Grow up, guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:12 PM

DougR, I am looking for the report. I know that Kerry did not get ALL the youth vote, that would be just about impossible. Kerry did receive a larger percentage of the youth vote, and he did very well with women - as do most Democrats - just ask Bill Clinton!! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:15 PM

I believe that Bush winning the election is as much of a conspiracy as Watergate...

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:19 PM

That's nice Chris nightbird.

Brilliant, actually.

Why don't you call the Associated Press and see if they will listen to you why you think so.?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:26 PM

wel, Martin, some people are better at campaigning and blowing smoke than they are at holding the office and doing the job.

"If you can fool at least 51% of the people part of the time....."

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:27 PM

"Good to see you coming around, Don."

Just to be clear on that point, GUEST. In case you missed it, I haven't "come around." That's where I've been all along.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:29 PM

That smokestack Bush sure fooled a lot of people. All the sheep at Associated Press probably voted for him anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:33 PM

Any interest in whether the Guardian pissed off just enough Ohio voters to give the election to Bush? You see, those outside the US CAN influence our elections!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 04:50 PM

Actually, bird, Kerry fooled millions less.

Deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 06:00 PM

From the link Don Firth gave:

"They launched an aggressive takeover of Dwight Eisenhower's "moderate" Republican Party, opening up the "big tent" to invite in groups that had previously been considered on the fringe. Archconservative neo-Christians who argue the Bible should replace the Constitution even funded the startup of a corporation to manufacture computer-controlled voting machines, which are now installed across the nation. And Reverend Moon took over The Washington Times newspaper and UPI.

"Their efforts, as we see today, have borne fruit, as Kevin Phillips predicted they would in his prescient 1969 book "The Emerging Republican Majority," and as David Brock so well documents in his book "Blinded By The Right."

If that is what the 'moderate' Republicans did calculatedly in order to gain power, I think the Democrats using them as a guideline in order to do the same would be a very risky move. Since the Republicans allowed "into the tent" the archconservative, the fundamentalists, the religion-into-the-government with any means, the ones who think they are helping along "the end times", - with ruinous effect - who are the people the Democrats would have to invite into their tent? Once you lower your standards to gain the warm bodies in order your movement in order to draw political attention, where do you draw the line? There are a lot of scary people out there I would not want under the same umbrella I shelter under.

I'm ready to forget the Democratic party- actually I'm not even a member now, being registered non-partisan- and join a third party, fresh from the ground up, with a well-thought out platform that promotes the principles we hold dear. I am not willing to surrender "moral values" to the current Republican party or to our current government.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 06:41 PM

Actually, Ebbie, it was the neo-conservatives and the fundamentalists who moved in and gradually took over the Republican tent. By the same token, progressives who currently feel themselves disenfrachized are the ones who could move into the Democratic Party tent and, essentially, take over the Dems the way the neo-cons and fundies took over the Republicans. For example, you might want to engage the huge number of liberal Christians, who, like the progressives, are not that well organized and don't really have a voice. Liberal Christians (who do not believe that "America is a Christian country" but a country in which religious freedom is supposed to be the rule) feel really put-upon at the idea that the shrill Bible-thumpers have taken over the title "Christian" as if they are the only ones who have a right to it.

There are lots of non-crackpot liberal and progessive folks out there who simply don't have a voice and don't know where to go, and have pretty much given up trying.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 07:16 PM

He lost partly because while he was camping, sailing and tearing around in his gas guzzling Urban assault vehicle, he was allowing the republicans to define him. By the time the debates came around, it was too late. Besides, he is not very handsome, and he is intelligent. That alone will kill him in the south.
Anyone know who started that crap about Kerry wanting to do away with the Bible?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:02 PM

Kerry lost mainly because the American public is weaned on a diet of war propaganda from cradle to grave and is largely unaware of what their government actually does in the World. It invades, blackmails, terrorizes, conquers, and pillages. If they were aware of it there would be a second American revolution, because most Americans are basically good people.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Old Guy
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:04 PM

Cause he is an arrogant asshole like I tried to tell y'all.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,Auggie
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:07 PM

I've gotta tell you folks, I'm angry. Kerry lost because his nomination was a foolish choice by the DNC to begin with.

Millions of Americans like myself were not at all comfortable with Bush and were and still are especially enraged about his idiotic if not criminal "proactive" war. We would have been willing to vote for almost anybody else, but the key here is "almost". This election was just sitting there, a big, fat, juicy, ripe tomato ready for the democrats to pluck, and what do they serve up to us as a candidate? John Fucking Kerry.
Arguably the most liberal senator in the entire democratic camp, the possessor of an undistinguished 20 year record in congress(unless you like higher taxes and a weaker military),a man who shows no signs of leadership but instead seems to continually reinvent his position on almost any issue to reflect the direction of the prevailing winds of public opinion polls, a man who insists upon picking the scab off the nation's never-healing Viet Nam wound and then feigning hurt and surprise at the resultant bleeding, a man who comes across to middle America as a spoiled, condescending,pontificating Brahmin who owns multiple SUV's (or wait, they were Theresa's, right?) yet lectures us on global warming, who sports $90 haircuts while wanting "to get me a hunting license", who isn't averse to taxing the begeebers out of the rest of us while he can afford to be off windsurfing and snowboarding while paying taxes in the 12% range on an annual income greater than most of us will see in a decade, a man who, with his orange skin and botox and rude if not crude spouse, displays, in short, none of the traits middle-America sees in itself nor seeks in a president.

The democatic party didn't have to nominate a Zell Miller, but had they chosen someone at least close to the center of the democratic middle-meridian of thought rather than to choose someone with so little appeal to centrist voters, George Bush would have been beginning to pack his belongings this week.
Picking John Kerry to run as the democratic candidate is akin to the GOP electing to run Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanon for the office of President and then being totally surprised that middle America wouldn't go along. Duh...
So thanks alot DNC power brokers. Thanks for 4 more years.


There, I've vented. I feel so much better.


Not

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,Ragnar
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:14 PM

Well said Auggie.

R

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:17 PM

GUEST, Auggie: Brilliant. And correct, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:22 PM

GUEST, Auggie:

Hear, hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,Passerby
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:25 PM

That is pretty much what I was saying, Auggie, you just said it a whole lot better.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:24 PM

Fear is a powerful emotion.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:31 PM

Two words...

Karl Rove...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: freightdawg
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:40 PM

Was gonna say what Auggie said, but he already said it. Many, many people were at least willing to give the democrats a listen. But the ultra left wing of the dems ran the show until late in the campaign when Kerry hauled in all the ex-Clintonistas. They almost pulled the rabbit out of the hat, but by then I think the damage had already been done. Kerry choosing to dwell on the Vietnam war for the first few months of the campaign was just absolute suicide. America wants to put that memory to bed. He woke it up.

Don't forget that the Republicans picked up FOUR senate seats, and a few seats in the house. Bush's win was significant, mostly because of the size of the popular vote (approx. 3 million vote lead) but the real story is in the senate. Daschle lost. The sitting Democratic leader was defeated in his own home state. The Republicans pick up three other seats. Barak Obama and Ken Salazar are big wins for the Democrats, but they were dim candles indeed compared to John Thune and the others. This, my folkies, is where the real story of the next few years will be written.

I've said it before, will say it again. The Presidency is largely a figurative power. He can introduce legislation, but cannot pass it. He can veto bills, but cannot guarantee his veto will not be overridden. The real power resides in the House, Senate, and now more than ever in the Judiciary.

I sure would like to be a fly on the wall in the first Democratic Senate caucus of the new term.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:52 PM

And as Guest Auggie has so masterfully summed it up, is why I couldn't vote for John Kerry. All that and of course that Herman Munster look.

Fabulous response, Guest Auggie.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:55 PM

I agree. I didn't think he was that impressive of a candidate.

Keep your eye on Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:56 PM

As should be obvious to anybody, especially to anybody who reads Mudcat..

1)   Liberals, not centrists, are the foot-soldiers of virtually any Democratic campaign.
Consider who the darling of the most vocal Democrats was. Was Dean any less liberal than Kerry? Doubtful.

2)   Primary system, as set up, benefits the true believers in each party (who are also the above-cited foot soldiers.)--who are on the left for the Democrats, the right for the Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:09 PM

So Ron Davies, like your thread asks:

"When Bush loses, who will he blame?"

I think your foreskin got in the way of your foresight. Kind of blocked the vision out of one eye.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:19 PM

No, no, Martin. The vital thing is, he was going to blame me! And now he won't. I feel a sense of relief that can hardly be described! I do not need loopy crewcut paramilitaries coming up here and gunning for me. No siree. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:20 PM

I would have blamed Oprah.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:23 PM

I blame her for pestering me all the time at the grocery store checkout, staring at me from all those magazine covers. But...it's better than looking at Condoleeza Rice.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:24 PM

Ah, Martin, back to your old home in the gutter.

Sweet dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Genie
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 12:29 AM

I'm not so sure Kerry actually DID lose, if that means fewer votes were cast for him than for Bush in Florida, Ohio, and New Mexico.
Gore "lost" the election in 2000 partly because of the butterfly ballot, partly because of Florida's 'felons list', partly because about 27,000 ballots in Broward county were tossed out by a malfunctioning machine and never counted, and partly because of the SCOTUS overstepping its Constitutional bounds and stopping the manual recount of Florida's votes. (Any ONE of those irregularities was enough to more than make up for the 537 votes by which Bush officially "won.")

In this year's election, some of the irregularities can never be traced (Can you say "Diebold" and "Sequoia?"), but the selective obstacles to voting and the counting irregularities are, if anything, even more real and more pronounced than then.


Election stolen again?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 04:13 AM

Either he didn't really lose because the vote was rigged or he lost because half the U.S. is just plain ignorant (common knowlege) or maybe because he was just plain 'schmarmy'.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,red
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 08:24 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,Redhorse at work
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 08:34 AM

sorry, my finger slipped.


I suspect the real reason Kerry lost was because Bush didn't.

It's a truism that contenders don't win elections, incumbents lose them. In any election the incumbent has a massive advantage. He will win unless he has alienated a significant percentage of those who put him in power. Sure Bush pissed off a large number of Americans but nearly all of those wouldn't have voted for him in the first place:- they just strengthened their opposition.The Bush team made sure he hung onto his previous supporters. The"wolves" crap didn't convert anyone, but it reinforced the convictions of his supporters. Yes, the vote was higher, but it was higher on both sides. The fear and hatred brought them to the polls, it didn't change their minds.

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: kendall
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 09:30 AM

And the worst of it all is the almost certainty that Bush will put 4 more "Clarence Thomas" judges on the big bench.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:13 AM

Diebold!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:32 AM

It's partly the fault of the Democratic Leadership Council and party leadership (I certainly hope McAuliffe's head is one of the first to roll) I think, for putting forth such a poor "status quo" candidate. It's partly the fault of the media for demonizing and/or marginalizing the other primary candidates who would have been much better had their coverage been better, like if Edwards had led the ticket. I don't know if Dean would have been electable, but I think the party would have been much less demoralized with a Dean loss.

Partisan hatred was also partly to blame. Hatred towards Bush blew up in the Anybody But Bush folks' faces, because instead of mobilizing their base, it alienated the progressives who stayed home and didn't vote, or didn't vote for prez, or voted for another candidate, including, obviously, Bush.

But finally, the partisan hatred for Bush fired up Bush's base, and brought them out in record numbers. I think that really hurt Kerry in the swing states. As I read David Corn of The Nation's very partisan and angry article in response to the election results yesterday, all I could think of is "hey, this guy STILL can't let go of the 2000 election, much less the 2004 results". When I ran into the people I know who were the most entrenched haters of all things Bush, they were still ranting about 2000. It was rather bizarre. But that hatred drove a lot of the Republican base to the polls, for sure.

The high levels of turn out should have favored the Dems on the ground. But the Republicans beat them this year at the get out the voters ground game too. So, it's a truly brave new world as far as that goes. The Republicans have power at the top, and a machine to grind out voters at the grassroots level. Now, the Democrats have one, but not the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: mg
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:58 AM

Macaulife must go. He is so slimey.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 11:16 AM

Guest- I do agree with you about the DLC and your assessment of the Bush base. The Democrats do need to find a better candidate that addresses the core values that made the party.   I'm not sure if you were the anonymous guest that suggested Russ Feingold in another thread, but I do think he would be great. I worry that he would become another Dennis Kucinich. But the Dems need to start working on rebuilding their base.

The other aspect is that, as I have said previously, the youth vote did not turn out in as high of percentage as expected. Fewer than one in ten voters were between the ages of 18 and 24 - the same percentage as 2000.

Also, I have not seen what the final national numbers are, but yesterday it was reported that turnout was around 60%. While that is great, it is still not as high as the percentages in 1960, 1964 and 1968.   There were more voters in 2004, but there were still many registered voters that did not go to the polls.

Guest, you stated that progressives stayed away. While the percentages show that there were many that stayed away from the polls, I wonder how many of them would be "progressives". If the progressives wanted to make a statment they would have come out stronger for Nader, the Green Party or others. The "fringe" parties had a very poor showing this time.

This is going to be a very strange election to analyze and I am sure we will be hearing all sorts of data and theories for years to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 11:16 AM

Surveys of voters leaving the polls found that a majority believed the national economy was not so good, that tax cuts had done nothing to help it and that the war in Iraq had jeopardized national security. But fully one-fifth of voters said they cared most about "moral values" - as many as cared about terrorism and the economy - and 8 in 10 of them chose Mr. Bush.

In other words, while Mr. Bush remains a polarizing figure on both coasts and in big cities, he has proved himself a galvanizing one in the broad geographic and political center of the country. He increased his share of the vote among women, Hispanics, older voters and even city dwellers significantly from 2000, made slight gains among Catholics and Jews and turned what was then a 500,000-popular-vote defeat into a 3.6 million-popular-vote victory on Tuesday.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,larry K
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 11:16 AM

Well said Auggie- a few more points.   The only time the democrats have won in past 20 years was with a candidate from south- (Carter and Clinton)    They have virtually conceded south with more lost Snate Seats.

When Reagan won the southern senate seats were controlled by democrats.   Today it is 23-3 for republicans.    A massive change in past 25 years. Running a liberal senator from Boston was suicidal.   Hillary has the same uphill battle in 2008.

Looking at the massive failure of Nader, Kucinich, and Dean it is hard to see how an ultra left candidate is going to win an election.

Kerry had everything going for him- million of dollars in 527's, the media, hollywood, rock stars, 60 minutes, anti bush books, youth vote, an unpopular war, and still lost.   He dodged the media and told us he had a plan, but never told us what it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 11:19 AM

I agree. And so must the power and influence of the Democratic Leadership Council--the Clintons, Gore, Lieberman, Kerry, the whole sorry lot of them. Bill Clinton was an anomaly, not a trend. And Hilary isn't Bill.

The leaders of the House (Gephardt--remember him?) and Senate are now gone too, and that too is good for the party. The thing is, this sort of resounding defeat of the party will hopefully be good, if the anti-corporate politicians can gain some power. If there still are any anti-corporate politicians in the Democratic party at the national level, that is.

The Democrats need to reinvent themselves as The Peoples' Party in the way the Republicans did when they swept into power in 1992. I think the answer is not to go after the south, but the Midwest and the West. That means, Democrats need to start looking outside the places where the base has been safe and comfortable, ie outside the major urban areas, and getting the hell back into the rural parts of this country. When Daschle loses in South Dakota, you know the Democratic party leadership has totally lost contact with it's own party's rural grassroots. Even as I type that, I can feel that very deeply. The Democrats have focused too much on the urban and suburban voting blocs, and ignored the rural voter completely. A look at the red states shows how much work is cut out for them.

But there was good news for Democrats in a lot of places in the west and midwest this election. They just need to get back to basics. When it comes to standing up for the environment, it doesn't mean sending off a check to the DC environmental lobbyists. It means getting to work out here in the hinterlands, and supporting environmental activisim where it is happening. That means in the cities and suburbs, but it also still means, most dramatically, the environmental battles being waged in remote rural areas of the upper midwest (like Michigan's UP for instance), and west.

The south should just be jettisoned completely from any primary, top priority tier efforts at political organizing, IMO. The Democrats should focus on the midwest and the west, and in figuring out what it truly means to be the party protecting the environment. We need Democrats to STOP COMPROMISING ON THE ENVIRONMENT. That strategy is destroying much of what is left of the wilderness, of the environment that is so crucial to the cities, like watersheds--if the Democrats were smart, they'd get on the right side of the water wars in the west--something they never do. They are always appeasing the corporations, and do very little to actually limit the raping and pillaging of the nation's natural resources. It is absolutely shameful.

So I vote we fire the Nature Conservancy, et al at the same time we fire the Democratic leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 11:22 AM

I think I am on the record, a number of times here, saying that it is always a fight for the middle. That is why the third parties don't fly in any way except as spoilers. That is why my colleagues in the Democratic Party can be right on most issues, but if you aren't seen as being in line with the middle, you lose.

The Party needs to remember that in its heyday, it was center left. That is when it wins. When it is center left, it gets its traditional base (working, middle class folks) and the undecideds. When it perceived as too far left, we are out of touch with the middle and we lose.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Metchosin
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 11:24 AM

What I find interesting is the voter turnout. In Canada's recent election, voter turnout was 60.5% and decried as the worst since Confederation. The US, on the other hand, gets 60% and it is hailed as a triumph.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 11:58 AM

Love to get a rise out of you Ron Davies.

I just knew that you would respond.

You are just so much fun to humiliate.

You are my Margaret DuMont.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 12:13 PM

Ron, the progressives I was talking about are the grassroots progressive Democrats and independents. They, like me, vote strategically, candidate by candidate, or based on a certain issue/position, that sort of thing. We aren't loyal to the Democratic party, the way you and Big Mick and Nerd and a few of the other Mudcat Dems are. We truly vote independently, whereas you vote in accordance with your party loyalties.

So when I say progressives stayed home, I mean those who may have voted Green, or for Nader, or for other local independent candidates on their ballots, but also often vote with the Democrats, but only when a non-regressive sort of Democratic candidate is running for the office in question.

Progressives are part and parcel of the swing vote bloc, but we aren't "the middle" or the "the moderate" swing voters. We are completely ignored by everyone, but we are also the non-voters who don't have much faith in the political system, and therefore have spend our time and efforts working for progressive change outside the political system. There are millions of us, but the mainstream political establishment, media included, don't want to acknowledge our existence. But we are here, a huge voting block, and it includes a lot of the youth vote the Democrats were chasing this year that didn't turn out. They cast a cynical glance t the political landscape this year and concluded "why bother".

Some people actually came out and voted for Nader and the Greens in 2000, and the progressive movement was starting to make some serious inroads on the political level. But that was crushed by the Democrats, who are much more worried about us, than the Republicans.

But the Democratic party is never going to get back into power without us. That is just the truth Democratic party loyalists who think the status quo "inside the box" ways (like insisting that the Democrats pander to the urban and suburban middle class voter, the rest of the nation be damned), and so the party keeps selling out to the global capitalist wing, which has dragged the party and the nation so far right that it can't even recognize a progressive agenda for what it is, so threatened are they by us. But like I said, the Democratic party won't ever get back into power without us progressives, without the Midwest and West, and without the rural voter.

And actually, progressive activists, especially those who have been involved for decades doing environmental organizing, are all over the Midwest and West. We know how to organize the constituencies the Democrats need, because we have been organizing with them for decades. Flaming liberal and progressive grassroots activists working outside the political system, be it delivering health care to poor and/or rural communities, doing environmental organizing, what have you. We know what we're doing, we have a lot of allies that don't vote for Democrats now but could easily be delivered if you addressed their issues (have a look at Feingold's webpage to see what he champions). We know how to build networks and alliances in our own backyards. You need us, frankly, much more than we need you at this point. But imagine the power we could wield if the Democrats just got their heads out of their Northeastern liberal establishment asses!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,too
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 12:13 PM

Why did Kerry lose,
let me count the ways.
1 He didn't follow the Bush Campaign three G's...Guns. God and Gays.
(11 States banned Gay Marriage on Tuesday)
2. He tried to seperate the war on terror from the war in Iraq.
(51% of Folks still don't get it)
3. He supported a Woman's right to choose.
(the Midwest and a Male Politicians think they can do that for Her)
4. He doesn't watch Nascar and did not campaign at the rally's held at the Nascar Racing tracks.
5. He wanted the World to respect America again.
(51% of the population of the US think they are "the World' and the Media helps that Fantasy.
6. He tried to explain that being a War President during a War that was created under Lies and Fear wasn't really a War President but a President intent on War.
(too difficult to understand)
7.If you are a Spiritually inclined person, he lost because he was spared the job of cleaning up the disaster which is now America.
8. He didn't get the Osama Bin Laden Tape first.
9. He cared too much about the American people and the World Community.
( unlike professing to Love America while clearly hating a good number of Americans and a good portion of the people in other Countries).
4 more Years was the Bush supporters cry..well you got it....
but I have to think that America lost along with Kerry.
Electronic Voting is Not an option. When will all the States announce the Total Ballot Count? Every Vote does Count....so....let us know when they come in George.....cause I know as a Republican you are big on small Goverment so when are the absentee ballots and early Vote results going to be announced.....or would that smell too much like fair play.......oh....and Kerry lost because Karl Rove wasn't for Him (as if..lol).....and we all know what happens when karl ain't behind you...just ask Senator John McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Chris Green
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 12:22 PM

"Why did Kerry lose?"

Because, sadly, it would appear that a majority of Americans prefer crude and simplistic flag-waving bluster to informed political debate.

I might be wrong, but that's the way it looks from this side of the pond.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 12:33 PM

You know, it is really upsetting to see people here being so contemptuous of a good chunk of the Bush voters, as if they were all one monolithic right wing Christian militarist gun nut group.

I know a lot of old school Republicans who voted for him as the "lesser of two evils" the same way old school Democrats did for Kerry. Sure, Bush's conservative base was stronger than Kerry's liberal base this time out. Wake up and smell the coffee Democrat loyalists--your liberal base has shrunk dramatically in the last several decades, because you abandoned the left wing of the party, and went chasing after the soccer mom and NASCAR dad. They ain't your base. Your fantasies about going for the middle, centrist, moderate swing voters have been delusional at best. That sad, tired old strategy not only hasn't worked, it has given the Republicans power they haven't had in over a 100 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 12:35 PM

Sour Grapes abound!!

Typical far left liberal excuses and finger pointing for everything.

Guest, too how about changing your name to Loser, also?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 12:47 PM

People lost because people preferred Bush. That's it.

Thing the Dems could do is figure out exactly what their platform is gonna be in four years and work towards that. Develop a detailed plan for health care; detailed plan for encouraging the economy; detailed plan to get outta Iraq.

The American political scene runs on personalities and plans. Both candidates have the charisma of a slug, so maybe someone who seems human and somewhat intelligent would be nice. Also, the American people should be allowed a plebicite on gun control and abortion. The bullshit with those two things have gone on long enough. Let the people decide, and then live with the decision, whatever it is.

Last, maybe having campaign contributions to ALL parties limited to a fixed figure would be a good thing for democracy--at least what's left of it in the States.

Yanks are so split in their own country, that other people from around the world see a divided nation. Not close to civil war, but maybe getting close to civil disobedience again, and maybe that's about time.

Playboys and playgirls, ain't gonna run my world!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 01:07 PM

You know, progressives spearheaded the environmental movement, which the Democratic party long ago coopted and abandoned, and today only pays lipservice to, then presumes will get our vote. The same way the Democrats presume they will continue to get the minority and women's votes. They presume much too much, obviously, and their arrogance has cost them control of the US political establishment and the government from local to national levels.

Also, it was progressives who spearheaded the anti-nukes and non-proliferation movements, also co-opted and crushed by the Democratic party, who still presumes they will get our votes.

The rural voters concerns were also once the concerns of the Democratic party. No more. And the Democratic party, except in statewide races in states with large rural constituencies, has abandoned that voting constituency altogether.

Which is why Nader did so well in 2000. This 2004 election, the progressives who participated in the Democratic party bet the farm they could beat Bush. They were wrong, and they alienated a lot of their allies and constituencies on the progressive left by throwing in their lot with the Democratic party for nothing in return but a big loser of a candidate in Kerry.

Those progressives--the Michael Moores and the Noam Chomskys--their names are mud on the progressive left in the post-2004 election apocalypse this week. They shot their credibility as independent thinkers and progressive champions dedicated to the causes they espoused, rather than professing loyalty to the corporate duopoly in this overhyped "election of their lifetime".

Metchosin said: "The US, on the other hand, gets 60% and it is hailed as a triumph." Amen to that. This was no "election of a lifetime". It was same old hype, same old shit. And that's exactly what the US has for it's federal government's administration for at least four more years.

Subject: It's the Genitals, Stupid!
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 01:45 PM

Auggie (who says Kerry lost because he is too far left) and GUEST (who says Kerry lost because he is too far right) are both wrong.

Polls suggest that Kerry lost because people are voting on "Moral Values." Left/right on political issues was not as important as stance on gays, God and abortion.

Essentially, the Republicans have spent decades defining "moral values" as meaning "things the bible and/or church says about sex," with the emphasis on Gay issues and Abortion. So it is not immoral to invade a country and kill 100,000 of its innocent civilians, and have the reasons why you did it change in the wind, but if two gay guys get visitation rights when one is hospitalized it is a threat to our worldview. It is not immoral to execute criminals, or to imprison people without charges, but to even mention abortion when a fourteen year old girl is pregnant is a deadly sin.

If the genitalia are not involved, it hardly counts as a moral issue. Here we had activist priests within the Catholic church condemning Kerry for his stance on abortion, but no one condemning Bush for personally signing death warrants or for invading Iraq, a move which the Pope condemned. Why? Because killing Iraqis or prisoners does not involve the genitals, but abortion suggests sexual indiscretions, which are the worst sins imaginable under this weird worldview. (Of course, this is made doubly ironic by all the Catholic church scandals of recent years).

We have people expressing intense fear that "Gay Marriage" will somehow harm their own straight marriages. Gay marriage, by the way, is an idea that few people support, and that Kerry specifically does not support.   What the "gay marriage" issue is REALLY about is extending civil rights of married couples to gay couples. Why wouldn't you want to do that? Because it validates homosexuality itself, and suggests that what one does with one's genitals is not a political issue! Imagine THAT!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 01:46 PM

This mentality is just like the people that think Aids can rub off on you...

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,too
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 01:50 PM

I am most certainly no Loser Martin.....of that I am sure rofl....
You however have a very sad, limited vocabulary and are full of contempt and verbal diarrehea.
In fact Martin...your just plain sad....( and not very funny or smart either)..although you seem to think, and I use the term loosely, that you are!
My sympathies to you.
This is "too" over and out of here...carry on Martin......everybody needs something in their Life to make them feel important....You obviously need this Forum more than anyone else on it.
ROFL from this occasional Guest who won't be back for a while....lol
Off on Vacation........change your name to Loser......sweet...rofl

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Once Famous
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 03:24 PM

when you rofl, don't roll in any shit.

You are pathetic and are just a sniffling whiner who's candidate lost.

Wahhhhhhhhhhh!

Wahhhhhhhhhhh!

when your gone, take a course in debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:42 PM

Hey Martin--

How's the Martin Gibson School of Charm coming? Have you filled up the class yet for your tutorial on "Filthy Invective"?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:53 PM

Duelling Bouzoukis (4 Nov 2004 12:22 PM) is dead right--that's exactly how I framed it in my post of 2 Nov 2004 12:44 AM in the Election: Your Thoughts thread.

Emotion vs Reason

And fear is a powerful emotion.

Bush only had one string to his fiddle (makes for a limited range of tunes), but one string was all he needed, since he only had one tune-----fear; primarily of terrorists and homosexuals.

But his tune was a big hit--in fact it's a perennial favorite of all demogogues--Bush just followed in the grand tradition, throwing in a little hate also, since that's also a crowd-pleaser.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 09:39 AM

Nerd,

I never thought I'd be saying this but.......I feel betrayed by Kerry and Edwards because they didn't follow through in getting all the votes counted as they said they were going to do. They retreated! This election was stolen by Diebold and Blackwell as well as Jeb Bush. Also by the suppression of the votes by the Neocon fascists. Kerry and Edwards did their supporters a disservice by not following through and bowing out early. It would not have hurt the country to wait for another 11 days.

The Republican neo-con fascists may be gloating now but any phony olive branches that they wave to disgruntled Dems are silly since the Bushies conducted a partisan, lying smear campaign to get this Radical Right-wing warmonger elected (if again he was through legitimate means).

If Kerry made any error at all, it was not just about Values which i think he articulated fairly well when the corporate-owned media allowed it to get through, but it was not to oppose the Bush occupation in Iraq.

The good thing this election has done is to mobilize the Liberal-Democratic base and we will defeat this deluded sanguinary Radical Right-wing arrogant
figurehead. So you may have been right all along about Kerry.

I just hope that the Democrats will not capitulate to the fascist Republicans by adopting any of their misguided programs.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:08 AM

NERD-
Aptly, and succinctly, put. What scares me is that the American voters are so eager to ignore internatonal, environmental, economic and civil rights issues to assure themselves that their leaders won't permit abortions, sanction gay marriages or get blow jobs in the Oval office.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:23 AM

Just under a quarter of Bush's voters said their main reason for voting for him were Bush's moral values.

That is no mandate. One quarter of the half of the voters who voted for Bush, which doesn't include the half that voted for Kerry, or the potential voters who didn't vote...

I'm sure you catch my drift. That "moral values" thing is largely hype, and the anti-gay thing is on it's way to the Supreme Court. Those referendums are going to be challenged legally, and a good thing too. It is so pathetic that Kerry/Edwards didn't take a strong, vocal moral stand against the fascists who put those forward.

I'm convinced the country is much better off without Kerry. As others have said, I too believe that Bush was elected (for the first time) because both he and the American people need to be held accountable.

The Democrats won't start winning until they start putting forth champions of progressive values the way the Republicans have put forth their champions of regressive values.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:39 AM

99

Subject: RE: BS: Why Did Kerry Lose?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:39 AM

100. It's mine.
                The true path!