Post-Election Analysis

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm gonna have to hope JD helps me out here again, but a president's primary responsibility, IIRC, is foreign policy and head of the armed forces. We've had peace so much of the time here in the US, and I think this aspect has been forgotten. Congress is more for domestic policies, I think (as brownie said, "in the end, the president has a lot less control over the economy than most like to think... the fed and the congress have a lot more power in this area"). That's why it was an impossibility for the previous Pres. Bush to keep his "no new taxes" pledge - he can do everything possible on HIS side, but Congress can overrule him in this area. Anyway, the different branches of govt focus on different areas, tho they all tend to have some say in all areas. They overlap - but their focus is different. So it is entirely reasonable to make foreign policy/war a major reason to vote for a candidate.

That it was his primary responsibility, that I didn't know. But I trust your foreign policy is more than simply the war.

I hadn't forgotten about your Congress, and I know your president is not all powerful. However Bush will, on ground of his election items/stances, put some things before Congress, isn't it? And Congress can overrule it or not. But Congress has, I believe, right now a majority of republicans? Considering they are of the same party and probably uphold the same party values, won't they easier agree with Bush's proposals? Thus those items would also be a factor in the vote, granted like you said, not the major reason.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Also - as you said - the president has very little to do with the economy - either positively or negatively. Some actions can influence it - but can not change it overnight.

I never said the president controls the economy. But there are certainly economical measures he can propose that can influence the economy.

Earniel -
As far as I'm concerned - what goes on internally in the US is up to Americans - not up to outsiders. That is why I think it is no concern to you whether we aloow or don't allow abortions, or stem cell resrearch, or the death penalty (which I support). It doesn't concern anyone outside this country.

As you wish. However that won't stop me taking an interest in, and be concerned by matters that happen inside your borders. How can I otherwise discuss it when I know nothing about it?

I'm sorry but it doesn't seem to add up, you think American domestic issues don't concern outsiders but at the same time you complain that outsiders don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Having an opinion is one thing. But the decision is up to Americans - and people must understand that it is 100% our decision. We are not Europe and we have different values and ideas.

Hey, I never said otherwise.

They can vote for Chirac if they want - and they can support that ban - that doesn't affect my life here in the US. That is where the difference is in what she was saying - and what I am saying. She wasn't talking about disagreeing with certain issues, she was saying who would have been a better president based on domestic concerns.

What I was saying is that I have an opinion about who I think would have been a better president based on domestic concerns. Is a difference.

How can she not be making her decision from the viewpoint of her country? She doesn't know fully the issues of America - she sees these issues in the lens of her media (even though she says she doesn't - it's impossible not to) - not US media (which is generally liberal here anyway). But someone living outside the US does NOT have a complete understanding of American domestic issues. They only have half the picture - if that.

Look JD, I'd really appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth I never said. I never said I am fully knowledgable of the American issues. I certainly never said I wasn't influenced by my media. I look at things from my culture and situation as you do. The media influences me, like yours does with you. You won't hear me denying that.

However, what I meant was that I sometimes look at foreign issues without the benefit of my country as center and starting point, thus not from the viewpoint of my country. I'm sorry, I don't know how to put it any clearer than that.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

That it was his primary responsibility, that I didn't know. But I trust your foreign policy is more than simply the war.

During a time of war - that is mostly what a president is dealing with in foreign policy. Plus Bush has done a lot other than war and brought in IMPORTANT allies - such as Pakistan.

I hadn't forgotten about your Congress, and I know your president is not all powerful. However Bush will, on ground of his election items/stances, put some things before Congress, isn't it?

He will put things before congress - just like all presidents submit things before congress.

And Congress can overrule it or not. But Congress has, I believe, right now a majority of republicans? Considering they are of the same party and probably uphold the same party values, won't they easier agree with Bush's proposals? Thus those items would also be a factor in the vote, granted like you said, not the major reason.

There is a wide range of beliefs in a political party. Bush has had to fight for most things - and democrats have had to be on his side to get things done - even though his own party has a majority in Congress. As you said, a majority in Congress does not mean a slam dunk for the president - it just makes it a bit easier, but the senate is still pretty evenly divided. Bush put before Congress the constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and woman. Democrats went around screaming about it as if it would actually go through - I was not concerned - it's practically impossible to get a Constitutional amendment ratitified (as it should be). I'm against the Federal government getting involved with it. A lot of republicans make statements to appeal to the religious - knowing that they will never be approved. the democrats do the same thing. The thing is to know what the president can do and what he can't do and whether he truly wants to do it. Bush didn't even work hard on getting the Constitutional amendment approved - he just sent it to the Hill.

As you wish. However that won't stop me taking an interest in, and be concerned by matters that happen inside your borders. How can I otherwise discuss it when I know nothing about it?

Why are you concerned about what goes in our borders? Aren't there enough problems in the EU to worry about? I notice that most people on here want to discuss America, complain about our politicians - but hardly anything is ever discussed about other countries. Look at the UK Political thread - two frigging page. You mean you and other Europeans have no input on what happens to your next door neighbor? You'd rather concern yourself with the domestic policies of a country 3,000 miles away? Suyrely Britain must have some domestic issues that people can be outraged with - I know there are things Britons seem okay with that I would have a serious problem with here.

I'm sorry but it doesn't seem to add up, you think American domestic issues don't concern outsiders but at the same time you complain that outsiders don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it?

That isn't want I'm saying - I'm saying that you don't have enough knownledge of our country or concerns to make a knowledgeable opinion on domestic issues that affect this country. I think you can have opinions about what goes on in america - but that is all. Europeans have for a long time been acting like nosey neighbors when it comes to our domestic affairs.

What I was saying is that I have an opinion about who I think would have been a better president based on domestic concerns. Is a difference.

But you must admit those are on YOUR concerns - not the US concerns. Tell me why you supported Kerry? You yourself said that basically your position was "anyone but Bush".

Look JD, I'd really appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth I never said. I never said I am fully knowledgable of the American issues.

I never said you said you were fully knowledgeable on American issues - so don't put words in my mouth. My argument is that your opinion is based on half information and from not a full understanding of America.

I certainly never said I wasn't influenced by my media. I look at things from my culture and situation as you do. The media influences me, like yours does with you. You won't hear me denying that.

However, what I meant was that I sometimes look at foreign issues without the benefit of my country as center and starting point, thus not from the viewpoint of my country. I'm sorry, I don't know how to put it any clearer than that.

I don't see how you or anyone can look at another country from afar and not bring their own prejeducism and make an intelligent decision on the domestic issues of another country. It would be impossible for someone who has not lived in the US, or spent a huge amount of time here to not have their opinions clouded by their own country's belief system. Europe has contempt for religion - the US is founded on religion. Europe thinks religious people are nutcases (sometimes I do too), but religion is a part of the US culture.

I think most of the domestic issues are state issues and should be left up to the states to decide - not the federal government.

There was something on CNN which I think I had mentioned in the other thread - the reporter in Europe stated that one of the biggest problems in European/American relations is that Europeans have always thought of America as being just like them. Europeans are finally waking up and are now shocked to find out that we aren't like them, yet they still expect it to be true. Europeans are having a hard time dealing with this new realization - that we have different values, different beliefs and that we are not a clone of Europe.

Just because Europe wouldn't have voted for Bush - doesn't mean that we were "dumb" as the one British paper said or that we didn't know what we were doing.

[azalea]

I am going out of town for a few days, so I just wanted to give a nice reminder about this thread.

The topic is: giving personal analysis of, or discussing other peoples' analysis of, the election, why it looked the way it did, and its future implications for the US.

It is NOT to discuss personal views on various topics. I invite anyone who wishes to discuss anything in further detail that doesn't directly address "post-election analysis" to start a new thread. This will ensure the survival of this one, and will give the opportunity for more interesting and on-topic threads while keeping this one uncluttered.

Remember to be sweet to each other. Don't make personal attacks, and report any posts you find offensive. That will also ensure the survival of the thread. If you think a joking comment will be taken the wrong way, refrain from posting it in the interest of harmony. Thanks guys!!

Finally, although the thread is about the US election, all members of Entmoot are welcome to discuss and analyze, regardless of nationality. I wanted to clear that up, just in case.

See you soon!

[Rían]

OK, Mom, we'll be nice!

*overly-sweet angelic smile*

Have a nice trip!


heh heh!

[inked]

Why did you vote for Bush?
Why this dumb ol’ Okie voted for Bush
According to many political pundits, I am either dumber than a box or rocks or so filled with hatred of homosexuals and Muslims that I am easily misled by the deceptions of George Bush. I am an unsophisticated country bumpkin who doesn’t even know enough to look out for myself; I should leave that up to the likes of John Forbes Kerry who knows and understands my situation far better than I.
I should take to heart such deep thinkers as the editors of the Daily Mirror who recently published the headline: “How can 59,054,087 people be so Dumb?� And given some of the email responses to this headline, I really must be dumb, because how could I ever achieve the level of intelligence evidenced by messages sent in from the brilliant minds that supported Kerry? I’ll give you a few to help illustrate: “The next four years will be the most precarious in US history, and it won’t have anything to do with outside terrorists but those in power in the Bush administration.� Or, how about, “Our civil rights have been hijacked back into the 18th century. Please help us to emigrate out of this religious fanatical hell-hole!� Some even already have their sights set on England, as this comment from a resident of Ohio suggests: “Not enough people in my state are intelligent enough to vote with their brains instead of their bibles. I am planning on moving to England before this country completely goes to hell.� For people who don’t seem to care much for the Bible, those Kerry supporters sure seem obsessed with hell. Of course I am a bit worried; if all the smart people move out of the United States, whatever will all us dumb hicks do with ourselves? Why if we here in the middle of the country didn’t have people from New York and Hollywood telling us what to do, we would likely all starve or freeze to death.
But it is not just the English political observers who think I’m dumb, we have our fair share of intelligentsia in our own country as well, like Jane Smiley whose recent article, published in the Slate online magazine is subtitled, “The unteachable ignorance of the red states.� In it Smiley proves just how open-minded and sophisticated she is, as the following excerpt shows:
“Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence. The blue state citizens make the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking humans are essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be slugged from behind. Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.�
Well, I guess she must be right, I really must be ignorant, because try as I might with my little ol’ pea of a brain, I still miss all the nuance and complexity that my mental superiors like Smiley are so known for exhibiting. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me at all: I am ignorant, have a taste for violence (maybe that’s her nuance, she didn’t just come right out and say that I AM violent), I read the Bible but don’t really understand it, and I am a simpleton who might slug someone from behind if they ever dare to challenge my simplistic ideas (of course she can’t even get that right—we Bush supporters don’t slug people from behind—we gather up a mob with pitch forks and torches).
Or there is Gary Wills, who in a New York Times op-ed piece entitled “The Day the Enlightenment Went Out,� waxes eloquent about how the Enlightenment’s influence shaped our Nation’s founding fathers and led to such documents as the “Declaration of Independence.� He asks, “Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?� I’m so dumb I didn’t even realize Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin even knew about evolution. He then compares Bush supporters to Islamic fundamentalists such as al Qaeda before concluding: “The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.� What is it that Wills accuses Christian “Jihadists� like me with? We are opposed to abortion and gay marriage. It must take real genius to see peacefully casting a ballot in a national election as the equivalent of murdering innocent men, women, and children, because the similarity is lost on this dumb Okie.
But of course, this all has to do with reaction after the election. I’m really dumb because I had been told in so many ways by so many people to cast my vote for John Kerry leading up to the election. You know, I had the likes of megalomaniac George Soros try to influence my vote, who, when asked by The Independent to clarify his statement, “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood,� said “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of God, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.� Soros, a multi-billionaire, accrued much of his wealth through currency speculation, earning the title “the man who broke the Bank of England� for using his wealth and influence to devalue the pound in 1992, generating a profit for himself of $1.1 billion while creating untold hardship for businesses, pensioners, and the working poor throughout Britain. He has similarly manipulated various currencies in the East and most recently has been accused of actively working to devalue the dollar in an attempt to undermine the US economy which will reflect negatively on George Bush and has spent tens of millions of dollars in an attempt to unseat President Bush. But dumb ol’ me, I’m just not smart enough to understand that George Soros is really just looking out for me and has my best interest at heart. His only concern is to save the likes of me from our own stupidity.
There is also Michael Moore, whose “documentary� Fahrenheit 9-11 was so well loved by the French and so many of the intelligentsia but that looked to dumb ol’ me like just an obvious piece of propaganda, and not even very well done at that. I’ve also been encouraged by numerous Hollywood actors and musical artists such as Whoopi Goldberg (who enjoined voters to “keep Bush where it belongs and not in the White House� while pointing to her crotch), Eminem, and Pdiddy to vote for John Kerry, but their nuance and erudition is lost on dumb ol’ me.
Of course I was also hit with such intellectualisms as “Anybody but Bush,� and “No blood for oil.� I was told Bush was inept because he couldn’t get the French and the Russians to back the invasion of Iraq. But to this dumb Okie it sure looked like the French and the Russians were not the moral giants concerned only for the welfare of the Iraqi citizenry and world peace that they were made out to be. I was also told Bush should leave it up to the UN to deal with Iraq. With such recent successes as the UN “prevention� of genocide in Darfur and the food for oil program, who but a simple-minded Okie could fail to understand what a wondrously effective bureaucracy the UN truly is?

continued...

[inked]

continuation...

I’ve also been too dumb to be influenced by the likes of Dan Rather, who with the entire CBS News organization at his disposal failed to recognize that a document he used to smear President Bush’s reputation with was a forgery when internet bloggers were able to recognize it was a fake in less than 24 hours, or by ABC following a memo sent out by its News Political Director, Mark Halperin, directing ABC’s News Division to hold Bush more accountable than Kerry when performing fact checks. Most of the mainstream media, of course, were entirely objective in their reporting, but somehow a 3.7% economic growth in the 3rd quarter 2004 was reported as something to worry about when a 2.2% growth in the 3rd quarter 1996 (when Clinton was running for reelection) was cause for celebration. I was just too stupid to recognize the media’s fairness and objectivity.
As you can see, I am guilty as charged: dumb, dumb, dumb. I’m so stupid I actually believe in the virgin birth of Christ, believe that abortion and homosexual marriage are wrong, believe that if given a chance, Islamic terrorists would attack the US, and really don’t believe that a man who mortgaged one of his many houses for $6.4 million to help finance his run for office truly understands my financial situation. But I tried. I listened to all my intellectual superiors as they lectured, cajoled, and spent hundreds of millions of dollars in an attempt to influence me, but dumb ol’ me, I just wasn’t smart enough to understand.
----------------
Dave



I just had to share this evaluation of multiple evaluations of the election. I do so with the express permission of the author. Yes, I agree!!!

[Elfhelm]

I realise that most people who like Tolkien also like Lewis and, as both were Christian writers, there is a strong Christian contingent here at Entmoot. Peace to them all. I not only support their right to be Christians, I swore to defend it. But I am sad that they will not support or defend my right NOT to be a Christian. And I doubt that many of them swore an oath to protect my rights. Thomas Jefferson envisioned a democracy in which the tyranny of the religious could be kept in check by the separation of church and state. I am sad to note that people who call themselves Americans and speak of democracy, freedom, and liberty, have abandoned every principle of the founding fathers.

I've heard it said that my party, the Democrats, must go in search of these people and reach out to them to bring them to us. I say no! We don't want them in our party. I'd rather lose as liberals who believe in liberty and democrats who fight for democracy than meet these religious extremists partway. It is much more important to fight them. We Democrats have to break the Christian Coalition. We can't let them replace the Ten Amendments with the Ten Commandments!

That's my take on the election. A slight plurality, tipped to the right by the Christian Coalition. Democrats should stay their course. It's just a fad.

[jerseydevil]

Inked - I haven't read your whole post yet, but the first paragraph made mething of this. I was watching C-SPAN lastnight and they had a panelist of media people - NY Times, Newsweek, Conservative Republic and others. They're attitude was that the people who voted for Bush were idiots and were people who don't watch the news - or only watch one news programmer like Fox. They said it was the uneducated who voted for Bush. I think my statement in my letter to Time Magazine is very true - the elitish media.

There was also this one person in the audience who actually asked why the media didn't just tell people Bush was all wrong and why they continued to report things he said.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Thomas Jefferson envisioned a democracy in which the tyranny of the religious could be kept in check by the separation of church and state. I am sad to note that people who call themselves Americans and speak of democracy, freedom, and liberty, have abandoned every principle of the founding fathers.

Have you ever read anything that was written by the founding fathers? it was hardly religious neutral. The 1st amendement isn't a protection AGAINST religion - it's a protection to practice your religion. It is also not the government devoid of religion, but the protection that the US Government would not IMPOSE a state religion. There is a difference that many people seem to ignore. Look at the history of the founding fathers - including Thomas Jefferson. The US never founded on the absense of religion - like some people want to think.

[EarthBound]

JD is right on the 1st Amd., it was put in place to protect religion, not the government (and it's forms/sub-branchs).

It was a supremem court decision's interpritation that gave birth to the notion that anything religious needs to be completely removed from public life (Christmas, for example, changed to Winter Celebration and such)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

But I am sad that they will not support or defend my right NOT to be a Christian.

Oh come now, this is ridiculous. Specifics, please.

Thomas Jefferson envisioned a democracy in which the tyranny of the religious could be kept in check by the separation of church and state.

Please see JD's post - this is totally upside-down.

I am sad to note that people who call themselves Americans and speak of democracy, freedom, and liberty, have abandoned every principle of the founding fathers.

This is just flame-baiting exaggeration, IMO. Please specify all of the principles that have been abandoned and explain how they've been abandoned, IYO. I, for one, have one vote, and encourage EVERYONE to vote for THEIR OWN opinion, based on THEIR OWN personal BELIEFS. I don't stuff ballot boxes.

I've heard it said that my party, the Democrats, must go in search of these people and reach out to them to bring them to us. I say no! We don't want them in our party.

A typical statement from people that like to call themselves "tolerant".

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Please see JD's post - this is totally upside-down.

And you know I'm atheist - so it's not like I'm on the religious right. The democrats are just trying to make excuses for why they lost. I seriously don't think that a lot of it had to do with religious issues - i think it had more to do with the elitist attitude of the democrats.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

A typical statement from people that like to call themselves "tolerant".

I agree. Too many people use the terms "tolerant" and "opened minded" incorrectly. I'm not accusing anyone here (in fact, I have used them incorrectly to describe myself at times) of being a terrible person, mind. But refusing to accept that others are going to come to different conclusions, and yes, sometimes they are based on religious ideals, is not what I'd call open-minded.

Also, the people I've run into (none on here, thank goodness) that discovered I labeled myself Christian and went on to say "they HATED people like me" because we are so intolerant of everything. Wow...you hate me? And you don't know me...huh. Weird.

[Elfhelm]

I thought this thread was for posting our analysis. That's my analysis. Nothing either of the two of you say will ever make me think like you -- and vice-versa.

According to even the most dubious election results, at least 48% of the citizens of the United States think the present administration should be replaced. The Democrats are doing fine. The Democratic Party need not change. There is a Jesus fad going on. It will end when people get bored of that particular fantasy.

That's all I intend to say. I'm not going to argue. I know there is a Christian contingent here. know who "hates the sin but loves the sinner" here.

I do not claim to represent other Democrats, so don't call me "people". I am only one person.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I thought this thread was for posting our analysis. That's my analysis. Nothing either of the two of you say will ever make me think like you -- and vice-versa.

I merely posted regarding your misrepresentation of the founding fathers and the 1st amendment. Your personal views are yours - but I must say - you do come off as just as bigotted as you claim the people who are religious.

I should also remind you that Clinton never got 50% of the vote, but you never heard democrats saying anything about that before. Now all we hear is "we had 48%". I find the whining a bit annoying now. Kerry lost - NO MATTER what the percentages were. [edit - BTW I'm not necessarily talking about here - I'm talking about on the media. The democrats are all over the place making nightmare scenarios and whining that they lost.[/edit]

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I thought this thread was for posting our analysis. That's my analysis.

Yes, and I posted my analysis of your analysis

And part of my analysis was that using phrases like "have abandoned every principle of the founding fathers" is just plain innaccurate, IMO.

And I wanted to know how you think I, as a Christian, am somehow not supporting your right to not be a Christian

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I should also remind you that Clinton never got 50% of the vote ...

And Bush got 51%. I think that bears repeating!

[Insidious Rex]

yes a veritable land slide of a majority there. although i guess it fits well since in 2000 when bush get less votes then gore he interpreted his supreme court win as a MANDATE. so im only assuming he sees 51% as a shut out. Did he learn his math at Yale?

[Elfhelm]

I hope I'm not confusing anyone with details when I point out that all the votes are not counted, yet. And I hope the Republican Christian Party will permit us to disagree about some of those returns. They look rather shady from here.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

yes a veritable land slide of a majority there. although i guess it fits well since in 2000 when bush get less votes then gore he interpreted his supreme court win as a MANDATE. so im only assuming he sees 51% as a shut out. Did he learn his math at Yale?

I see you bring up the 2000 election - even though the popular vote is meaningless. As for acting like there was a mandate - he acted like a president who had won. A lot of the stuff that democrats like to bitch about were all bipartisan votes.