Post-Election Analysis

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

Liberals’ inexplicable fixation with the militant homosexual cause (representative of less than 3% of the population) proved self-destructive. In the past month, that lobby has destabilised such widely disparate institutions as the Anglican Church, the European Commission and, now, the Democratic Party. With all 11 states where referenda were held on same-sex marriage rejecting the proposition by majorities that had to be weighed rather than counted, the constitutional amendment that will finally resolve this issue is in the bag.

The funny thing is - that democrats don't want to acknowledge - is that even in states that didn't vote for Bush - such as Oregon - the marriage referrendums lost.

Across the Union, this election was as historic as it was dramatic. George W Bush led by 3.5 million in the popular vote and won four million more votes than Ronald Reagan in his 1984 landslide. The turnout was the equivalent of 70% in a British election, with 120 million Americans casting their votes. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives are now in solid Republican control: that makes a conservative Supreme Court, with both power and a strong popular mandate to reverse Roe v Wade and other liberal obscenities, a shoo-in.

I disagree with this one - there are many moderate republicans which would not like to see a radical "right" supreme court justice. I think any supreme court justice should only enforce the consitution - not make laws. Now I do think that Roe vs Wade was actually the courts legislating. I have not seen anything in the Constitution which shows that it is a person's right to have an abortion. It's difficult situation and something that should have been determined in Congress - not in the Supreme Court.

Now he wants Hillary Clinton to challenge for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Great idea: an East Coast, liberal, feminist überbitch that might have been computer-realised by Karl Rove, to leave the Democrats with just California, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Bring her on!

Sadly she might win NJ - but NJ is a pretty divided state - whatever the democrats would like to think. There have been suggestions that maybe Condoleeza Rice would run in 2008 - which I would like to see happen. Even in 1999 - I had written to her telling her just that.

>I saw the speech you gave at the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles on
>C-Span. I just wanted to tell you that I thought it was excellent. I
>started watching it when it was already halfway through it - so I'm
>going to watch the beginning at 1:30. If you're ever in Indianapolis or
>Louisville giving a speech I would love to hear you speak in person.
>
>I read on the web that you were special assistant for national security
>affairs and senior director for Soviet affairs on the National Security
>Council under Bush. You have so many good ideas - I was wondering if
>you've ever thought about being more involved in politics. From the
>short amount I heard on C-Span, you're the type of person we need in the
>White House.
>
>I just wanted to say again - I thought it was excellent.

Her response....

Dear Mr. Rosetta,

Thank you for your nice note. I loved my service in Washington but I'm not
sure when and if I'll ever return. I am, nonetheless, very glad that you
enjoyed the talk. All the best.

Condi Rice

Hillary would be an appropriate sequel to Theresa Heinz Kerry, the worst First Lady that America never had. Yet the one memorable phrase of her non-campaign might have summed up the motivation of those millions of middle Americans queuing for seven hours outside polling stations: "Shove it!"

Hillary would mobilize the republicans to vote against her. That is why there are many democrats who would rather not see her run. They know how polerizing she is.

The whole vile, patronising agenda of the bespectacled drabby wimmin, the Florida conspiracy bores, the wine-bar Europhiles and the Hollywood freak show has been trashed.

I believe this is what caused a lot of the outpouring for Bush.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think you can say 60 million French people think Michael Moore is the best thing since sliced bread. A lot, fine, but for someone who doesn't like people pigeon-holing Americans...

Well of course NOT all French - but the major majority from what I have seen, read and looked at. He's worshipped in much of (western) Continental Europe. He is all over French News even and they had a huge celebration when he won their film award for Farenheit 9/11. You can say what you want - but the facts speak for themselves.

[edit - the way they view him in france is that he's the american that tells everyone the way America really is. He's the person who confirms their negative opinions of Americans and the stereotypes they believe.

I can't remember who said this to me in IM - I think it was janny - said that it's sort of ironic that so many Europeans like Michael Moore when he's the stereotypical American they claim they hate - fat, loud, obnoxious, wears a baseball cap, etc. I guess as long as long as the person reinforces one's negative opinions - all that doesn't matter though.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The democratic party will be dead if they don't wake up and calm their radical views on the extreme left - like the propaganda piece that Michael Moore film which was full of lies and twisted truth.

so the democratic party will be dead if they have vocal liberal possibly distastful super ego loud mouths on their side spewing their opinion in the media but its perfectly ok for the republicans to hold up characters like Rush Limbaugh for the past 15 years as a breath of fresh air? Hypcorisy noted.

You better stop running to the courts when you don't like something - instead of getting things done through the democratic process such as the legislature.

wait yer suggesting that when theres an injustice that the courts should NOT be involved. even when its the ONLY alternative the injusted have? how american of you....

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So if Bush brings in democrat - what will your attitude be? I know how negative you are at everything - so I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why you don't like it.

Whats with this knee jerk defensive garbage to a legitimate relevant question? How sad. I ASKED do you think the new cabinet will be more conservative or less and the reasons why it could go less. Spare me the personal attack and try answering the question if yer capable k?

Originally Posted by inks article

Make no mistake, this election was a Christian-led counter-revolution.

I see someone is still in full gloat mode. and what a joke. I don’t see how anyone can make such broad sweeping statements about an election involving 120 million votes that is decided by a margin of 130,000 (ohio). Does 130,000 really make for a “revolution�? Over dramatic language always kills its own point. If the economy had been 2% worse in ohio or if healthcare had blown up in 5% more faces then it already has or even if Renquist hadn’t come down with throat cancer or if John Edward’s wife HAD come out with her breast cancer a day earlier (oh man what a fiasco that would have made things eh) you could have very well had things swing the other way when yer talking such a small number of votes.

There was a lot of yelling here earlier about a democrat having a bad attitude about Christian power in government and the perceived disenfranchisement that may result. And much of it was in fact deserved. But then you turn around and you see comments like “this is a Christian revolution!!� and you wonder why people worry. No it WASN’T a Christian revolution (or a “crusade�) it was a slim victory for a republican president. You can say a slim plurality of people voted based on abortion and gay rights but I certainly don’t translate that into a revolution. What about the other 78%? Are revolutions usually performed by a tiny minority?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so the democratic party will be dead if they have vocal liberal possibly distastful super ego loud mouths on their side spewing their opinion in the media but its perfectly ok for the republicans to hold up characters like Rush Limbaugh for the past 15 years as a breath of fresh air? Hypcorisy noted.

I love the sarcasm. I'm sorry - but the democrats have been far worse in their hatred for Bush and their "do anything" to get him out. Tell me - what was the purpose of Farenheit 9/11? Even Michael Moore has said that of course it doesn't show the whole truth - nor was it meant to - it was meant to show his point of view - yet it's called a "documentary".

wait yer suggesting that when theres an injustice that the courts should NOT be involved. even when its the ONLY alternative the injusted have? how american of you....

I wonder - how is the issue of abortion is an injustice (which is what I was talking about)? I am VERY American - I support the democratic process - and the issue of debate - something that Democrats don't want to do anymore. And before you go to the extreme - like you usually do - let me say that the Civil Rights movement was clearly in the Supreme Courts domain - since it can be argued that those practices conflicted with the Constitution (so don't even try to imply that I'm saying the courts play NO ROLE in protecting American rights ). Bush has come out and said he supports civil unions - he does not support marriage. Sorry you think someone is being infringed upon - but can you tell me how injustice is being committed against gays by keeping marriage as defined - "a union between a man and woman"?

I think the question that America is working on is - what is marriage and what is it's purpose in society.

Whats with this knee jerk defensive garbage to a legitimate relevant question? How sad. I ASKED do you think the new cabinet will be more conservative or less and the reasons why it could go less. Spare me the personal attack and try answering the question if yer capable k?

Again - the sarcasm. You may not like my observation - but pretty much I have gathered from you that no one would be able to satisfy you in the Bush's cabinet.
Let see what lead to my response to you...

So looks like the cabinet is crumbling. evans. rumsfield. tommy thompson. surely there will be some other names soon to follow. Do you anticipate the new cabinet going in an even more conservative direction then the past one since we are lead to assume the country is more conservative then ever? or will bush actually reach out to a wider circle of folk because he feels hes in better control of things politically and he doesnt need a bunch of people all of the same mindset as back up?

Don't presidents usually name to their cabinets who generally will work on the things that the president's goals are? And how is the cabinet crumbling? Did the democrats claim that Clinton's cabinet crumbled? Your post is full of accusations and sarcastic remarks. If you don't wish to be responded to like that - then I would suggest you stop adding in the little digs in yoru questions.

By the way - he's just named Gonzales as his Attorney General.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Don't presidents usually name to their cabinets who generally will work on the things that the president's goals are? And how is the cabinet crumbling? Did the democrats claim that Clinton's cabinet crumbled? Your post is full of accusations and sarcastic remarks. If you don't wish to be responded to like that - then I would suggest you stop adding in the little digs in yoru questions.

I dont care if you make snide comments. its par for the course. but you ignored completely the question and just made an uncalled for attack. i dont see how saying the cabinet is crumbling is such an insult. cabinets often crumble after an election. this is common. how in the world is that an insult? and i dont see how asking if he'll go MORE conservative because he feels he has a mandate or LESS conservative because he feels he has more power to have a wider variety of opinions is such a huge slander either. sue me. and by the way i SIMPLY asked about political idealogy. I didnt mention race or ethnicity or religion or sex. Someone responded by saying oh but he has blacks and women! and thats irrelevant to my question.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I dont care if you make snide comments. its par for the course.

It's equally par for the course fo you. But you don't want to see it - at least I know I can be sarcastic - nor will I make any apologies for it.

but you ignored completely the question and just made an uncalled for attack. i dont see how saying the cabinet is crumbling is such an insult. cabinets often crumble after an election. this is common. how in the world is that an insult?

Give me a break - you actually think that people are going to believe - with all the things that you have said in that past that was NOT a dig at Bush?

and i dont see how asking if he'll go MORE conservative because he feels he has a mandate or LESS conservative because he feels he has more power to have a wider variety of opinions is such a huge slander either. sue me.

Well that depends on how you ask it and whether you throw in your own digs in the question. Bush won the election - it doesn't matter if you think he doesn't have a mandate or not - whether he won with 70% of the vote or 50% of the vote - he won period. No on argued about whether Clinton had a mandate - of course during Clinton's presidency the democrats lost Congress - this year the Republican GAINED seats and unseated the House Minority Leader.

I think Bush will lead the country as he has been doing - I do not think he will just put conservatives in place and do not think he will just put liberals in place. I think he will just do what he feels is best for the country - whether you or others agree with that.

I didnt mention race or ethnicity or religion or sex. Someone responded by saying oh but he has blacks and women! and thats irrelevant to my question.

Wel what does that have to do with my comments? Bush has put minorties and woman in high positions - not like for the reasons democrats usually do which is to have a "token" black person - like Clinton did with the many people he appointed - but actually puts people in who he thinks are the best for the job - regardless of skin color or gender.

[Insidious Rex]

Infidelity eh… the silent end of the christian value folks has started giving their opinions on things it seems…

Liberal Christians Challenge 'Values Vote'

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Liberal Christian leaders argued yesterday that the moral values held by most Americans are much broader than the handful of issues emphasized by religious conservatives in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Battling the notion that "values voters" swept President Bush to victory because of opposition to gay marriage and abortion, three liberal groups released a post-election poll in which 33 percent of voters said the nation's most urgent moral problem was "greed and materialism" and 31 percent said it was "poverty and economic justice." Sixteen percent cited abortion, and 12 percent named same-sex marriage.

But the religious leaders acknowledged that the Christian right had reached more voters than the Christian left. Some said it was time for "moderate and progressive" religious groups, as well as the Democratic Party, to rethink their positions.

"One of the things a few of us are talking about is a reassessment of how the Democrats deal with an issue like abortion -- could there be a more moderate ground, where even if they retained their pro-choice stance, they talked about uniting pro-choice people together to actually do something about the abortion rate?" said Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal evangelical journal Sojourners.

If the Democratic Party were to "welcome pro-life Democrats, Catholics and evangelicals and have a serious conversation with them" about ways to reduce teenage pregnancy, facilitate adoptions and improve conditions for low-income women, it would "work wonders" among centrist evangelicals and Catholics, Wallis said.

In a conference call with reporters to discuss the election and the new poll, Wallis and three other Christian leaders argued that many religious Americans do not fall neatly into liberal or conservative camps.

They contended that there is a vast religious middle, including "progressive evangelicals," "resurgent mainline Protestants" and "socially conservative African Americans," that could be attracted by biblically based "prophetic" appeals to make peace, fight poverty and spread social justice.

"The values that were promoted most within the conservative religious community were almost always tied to a fear factor, and that was not necessarily the case in the Democratic strategy, and I would say should not be the case," said the Rev. Welton Gaddy, head of the Interfaith Alliance.

The nationwide telephone poll of 10,689 voters was conducted by Zogby International for the Catholic peace group Pax Christi, the New York-based civic advocacy group Res Publica and the Washington-based Center for American Progress, a think tank allied with Democrats. It had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point.

The poll found that 42 percent of voters cited the war in Iraq as the "moral issue" that most influenced their choice of candidates, while 13 percent cited abortion and 9 percent same-sex marriage. Asked to name the greatest threat to marriage, 31 percent said "infidelity," 25 percent cited "rising financial burdens" and 22 percent named same-sex marriage.

Tom Perriello, an organizer at Res Publica, said the poll shows that "while there may be a solid 20 percent who are very focused on abortion and gay marriage, for most Americans of faith, there are other moral issues of greater urgency, and that's where the religious middle is."

Throughout the presidential campaign, opinion polls showed that frequent churchgoers were far more likely to support Bush than his Democratic rival, Sen. John F. Kerry. Exit polls on Election Day found that 22 percent of voters cited "moral values" as the key to their vote, and they tilted 4 to 1 toward Bush.

The answer to this "God gap," Perriello said, "is that progressives need to embrace the deep moral critique that people are looking for and make that case on poverty and Iraq, and not just try to talk more about God or outpace the Republicans on gay marriage or abortion."

According to Perriello, liberal religious groups registered 500,000 new voters, made 400,000 get-out-the-vote phone calls, and raised $1.75 million for newspaper and radio ads during the campaign. But he said the post-election poll found that 71 percent of voters had heard from the religious right while 38 percent said they had heard from the religious left.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Infidelity eh… the silent end of the christian value folks has started giving their opinions on things it seems…

"One of the things a few of us are talking about is a reassessment of how the Democrats deal with an issue like abortion -- could there be a more moderate ground, where even if they retained their pro-choice stance, they talked about uniting pro-choice people together to actually do something about the abortion rate?" said Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal evangelical journal Sojourners.

If the Democratic Party were to "welcome pro-life Democrats, Catholics and evangelicals and have a serious conversation with them" about ways to reduce teenage pregnancy, facilitate adoptions and improve conditions for low-income women, it would "work wonders" among centrist evangelicals and Catholics, Wallis said.

In a conference call with reporters to discuss the election and the new poll, Wallis and three other Christian leaders argued that many religious Americans do not fall neatly into liberal or conservative camps.

They contended that there is a vast religious middle, including "progressive evangelicals," "resurgent mainline Protestants" and "socially conservative African Americans," that could be attracted by biblically based "prophetic" appeals to make peace, fight poverty and spread social justice.

It seems like they may now finally want to talk - instead of trying to have everythign decided in the courts. I think this would be a good thing - to come out and have a MEANINGFUL dialog - versus all this name calling and hatred of "us versus them" attitude.

[Insidious Rex]

who is "they"? What was that you said earlier about not treating groups as monolithic? Or was that not you?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by article posted by Insidious Rex

If the Democratic Party were to "welcome pro-life Democrats, Catholics and evangelicals and have a serious conversation with them" about ways to reduce teenage pregnancy, facilitate adoptions and improve conditions for low-income women, it would "work wonders" among centrist evangelicals and Catholics, Wallis said.

In a conference call with reporters to discuss the election and the new poll, Wallis and three other Christian leaders argued that many religious Americans do not fall neatly into liberal or conservative camps.

They contended that there is a vast religious middle, including "progressive evangelicals," "resurgent mainline Protestants" and "socially conservative African Americans," that could be attracted by biblically based "prophetic" appeals to make peace, fight poverty and spread social justice.

Make peace, fight poverty, and spread social justice works for me, BUT...

NOT at the cost of letting one religion dominate our party. We have Jews, Baha'i, Unitarians, and other non-Christian religions in our party. We represent all people who want peace and justice.

I do not think the Democratic Party should change. We are conciliatory. We are cooperative. When Clinton was President, the Congress was Republican and despite divisive efforts from the right, he was a uniter. When Carter was President he was cooperative with the right as well. I do not think we are the uncooperative ones.

Hey, why is someone allowed to call Hilary an uberbitch here? None of the things deleted from my posts even came close to that!

By the way, Rian, I never said people who voted for Bush are not Christians. I am glad that you do good works. That is not what I was trying to say. I was trying to show that the policies of the Administration are in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus. The fact that Republican Christians don't see it is the thing we really have to address. Instead of fighting hunger, the Adminstration increases it. Instead of being Good Samaritans, they oppose national healthcare, which would be so minimal it would only be used by the poor people. So the Democrats have to connect with people of all faiths who care about these issues, instead of trying to reach out to those who would take away other's rights in the name of their religion.

I sure hope I phrased all that well enough not to have it deleted because I think it is all very much to the point.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

who is "they"? What was that you said earlier about not treating groups as monolithic? Or was that not you?

I'm talking about they as in the group that wrote the article. I am well awar of the fact that many - if not MOST democrats will still want to take the militant stand against anything that does not agree with their beliefs.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think you can say 60 million French people think Michael Moore is the best thing since sliced bread.

You're right - it's much more accurate to say 60 million French people think MM is the best thing since croissants!

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

By the way, Rian, I never said people who voted for Bush are not Christians.

I never said you did.

I was trying to show that the policies of the Administration are in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus. The fact that Republican Christians don't see it is the thing we really have to address.

I was trying to point out that if you use the term "Republican Christian", then that term fits ME - I am a registered Republican, and I am a Christian - and I do care very much about the poor, and so do many of my friends who are Republicans and Christians. I was offended by you using a term like "Republican Christian" to describe people who don't give a rip about the poor, according to your post that was deleted by Earniel. The term is totally inaccurate and inflammatory, IMO. However, you probably get your impression of these people from what you see on tv, so it's somewhat understandable. The people that I know that are good and kind and do things like start whole organizations to help the poor in the US and across the world are quiet people, and not likely to be on the news.

Would you please stop using the term "Republican Christians"? I ask you to do this as a favor to me, if that has any weight with you, and also because it's inaccurate, as I have described, and I hope that means something to you, too. I hope you like to be truthful and honest, and that term is neither.

[Starr Polish]

Just want to say:

Thank you to all of those on this thread that recognize there is a Christian left as well as a Christian right. I happen to be a part of the Christian left, and am often automatically lumped with the other side anytime I mention my faith.

That is all.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You're right - it's much more accurate to say 60 million French people think MM is the best thing since croissants!

No no, my point was that you can't lump all French people together! I added the 'best thing since sliced bread' expression because I think it was funny. *drools* Croissants...

[Rían]

I know that was your point, you silly goofball! *gives Nurvi a hug* I was jes' trying to be funny

[Elfhelm]

But here's the problem: What, aside from gay marriage and abortion, is "Christian" about the policies of this Administration? Are the teachings of Jesus as presented in The Beatitudes and that story about "what you do to these the least of my brethren you do unto me", the basis of even one policy of this adminstration?

oy... I edited it so far down you can't even tell... that's a reply to Rian.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I know that was your point, you silly goofball! *gives Nurvi a hug* I was jes' trying to be funny

Well the French do think that Michael Moore is the best thing since Croissants. I heard they were going to rename the Arc de Triumph after him - they had this whole celebration there on election day for the grand announcement because they thought Bush was going to lose. They were going to rename it - Arc de Triumph de Moore. Obviously the party and celebration was cancelled.

[Elfhelm]

So we're going off topic to Michael Moore now? OK.

The villification of Michael Moore is a fine example of how this election ended up the way it did. The theory, as proven time and again, is that you can attack the man, and thereby avoid the argument. The same thing was done to Dan Rather, and it happens to anyone on the left. Look, if an axe murderer points at the moon and calls it a moon, the fact that he's an axe murderer doesn't turn the moon into the sun.

Just look at that post calling Hillary names. What does that accomplish but division? She sponsored a bill for healthcare for wounded veterans. But the people who don't want to spend the money on that take issue with her gender and they make up all kinds of insulting labels for her. Then they don't have to take care of the veterans who get wounded. It doesn't make any sense at all.

That's why this election has me baffled. I can't help but think we are doing the right things and that good-hearted people will evenually see through the attack methods that were used in this campaign.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

So we're going off topic to Michael Moore now? OK.

The villification of Michael Moore is a fine example of how this election ended up the way it did. The theory, as proven time and again, is that you can attack the man, and thereby avoid the argument. The same thing was done to Dan Rather, and it happens to anyone on the left. Look, if an axe murderer points at the moon and calls it a moon, the fact that he's an axe murderer doesn't turn the moon into the sun.

It doesn't happen to everyone on the left. The reason why Dan Rather and particularly Michael Moore were vilified is because of what they did. Michael Moore did NOT make a documentary - the thing is full of lies. If he didn't spread his outright hatred - then a lot less people would be attacking him. I find it funny that you make this statement - but refuse to acknowledge the way many republicans have been vilified throughout the years by Democrats.

Just look at that post calling Hillary names. What does that accomplish but division? She sponsored a bill for healthcare for wounded veterans. But the people who don't want to spend the money on that take issue with her gender and they make up all kinds of insulting labels for her. Then they don't have to take care of the veterans who get wounded. It doesn't make any sense at all.

The attitude toward Hillary has nothing to do with her being a woman - it has to do with her political beliefs.

That's why this election has me baffled. I can't help but think we are doing the right things and that good-hearted people will evenually see through the attack methods that were used in this campaign.

You mean like your attack methods and the ones used by democrats during the campaign and even BEFORE the campaign?

If you want to stop the hatred and the constant villification - then why don't you stop it yourself. You see nothing wrong with making very biggotted remarks about religious people. How is you making fun of their beliefs (which Earniel edited out) a positive step forward? You seem to ignore the attack methods used by yourself and the democratic party.