The election

[Traveler]

Chuck-Lyn has it right. I think a moderate, common-sense democrat could have cleaned George W.'s clock.
Personally, I grossly misunderestimated the power of the evangelical vote. Guess I'll know better next time.

[Jane]

Quote:

What this country needs is for the pragmatic moderates of both parties to combine and form a 3rd party that rejects the extremes of both. *A coalition of moderates who respect the values of "bible-thumpers" *and doesn't regard them as stupid Neanderthals and those who feel that it is our responsibility to provide a safety net for the less fortunate would set this nation on the right course. * Cheers, Charlie

Should probably say "a coalition of moderates who is determined to separate the state from religion, protect basic human rights and keep the national budget in the black.

Jane

Quote:

Should probably say "a coalition of moderates who is determined to separate the state from religion, protect basic human rights and keep the national budget in the black. Jane

Yup, that's the part that they don't get.

If we allow a Christian State Supreme Court Justice to place a monument of the 10 Commandments in a Courthouse, then the State is endorsing this form of Religion.

This is not a 'Christian' Nation, it is a Nation that was founded with Freedom of religion being a cornerstone. Our Forefathers immigrated from Countries where the State formally endorsed a Religion.

This is where the Christian Right is headed, and that is the problem. Even if 98% of the people in the United States decided that they wanted the U.S. to be a Christian Nation, it does not make it Constitutional. And that is why we need 'Activist Judges' to decide what is Constitutional and what is not. That is a judges' job. Voters do not get to decide.

[Bob_Smith]

Quote:

I just don't understand why some people feel the need to have the government support and endorse their religion.... There really is a great divide here.

Good point JohnBlake. To expand on it a bit - there are a great many religious people who truly believe that the agenda of this administration is inconsistent with the tenants of their faith. I am a Catholic. Some of our priests and bishops have been trying to reduce the American Catholic church into a wing of the Republican party. Yet the majority of Catholics voted for Kerry despite intense efforts by many priests and bishops to politicize the church. If this majority would organize a movement, and convince even a portion of their ranks to stop contributing until the leaders stop politicizing the church, maybe this razor-thin margin could be turned around. I have stopped contributing, and I told them why. They listen to money - if there's enough involved. State+religion is a poisonous combination and I believe both are served by trying to keep them apart. I'll be damned if I will continue to fund their merger, while simultaneously funding my own demise.

[Bob_Smith]

Quote:

Even if 98% of the people in the United States decided that they wanted the U.S. to be a Christian Nation, it does not make it Constitutional. And that is why we need 'Activist Judges' to decide what is Constitutional and what is not. That is a judges' job. Voters do not get to decide.

Cut-Throat - well said, as usual!

[cute fuzzy bunny]

The only problem is that the two parties in charge realize that being "in charge" is worth trillions of dollars, and they're willing to spend billions to gain the office, and far more than that to prevent anyone else from becoming a legitimate contender. Anyone with money for backing can easily find a republican or democrat contender to suit their needs, why swim upstream?

Then you have The Church, which is a trillion dollar business in and of itself and expansion is always on their minds.

Mix the two together, and you got somethin'. Its been done an awful lot over the years, usually with very good results...if you're a backer or a participant anyhow...

[Hyperborea]

Quote:

The only problem is that the two parties in charge realize that being "in charge" is worth trillions of dollars, and they're willing to spend billions to gain the office, and far more than that to prevent anyone else from becoming a legitimate contender. *Anyone with money for backing can easily find a republican or democrat contender to suit their needs, why swim upstream?

Best way to fix it is to give each candidate a set lump sum of cash and fixed number of hours of TV air time. Maybe a presidential candidate would get $1M and 10 hours of air time for the whole campaign. Spend it wisely. Running for senate or congress? $100K and 3 hours.

[BigMoneyJim]

Quote:

Best way to fix it is to give each candidate a set lump sum of cash and fixed number of hours of TV air time. Maybe a presidential candidate would get $1M and 10 hours of air time for the whole campaign. Spend it wisely. Running for senate or congress? $100K and 3 hours.

Define candidate. I can think of about 20 people making a serious run at it at the beginning of the primaries.

On a completely different note, as a mental exercise I'm looking forward 4 years. I heard some speculation a year or so ago that Hilary Clinton is positioning herself for a 2008 run, and I'm hearing more speculation after the election. I don't know much about her as a politician, but let me go on record saying there is no way she will win in 2008. She is hated by all these "evangelical Christians" that just reelected dubya. I was living in Texas during the Clinton presidency and she was universally reviled by churchgoers. I never understood why, but I don't understand the Bush win, either.

I'm not moving to Canada, by the way, even though I've visited and it's very nice. The social conservatives lived through the Clinton years, and so social liberals will live through Bush's years.

EDIT: I actually do understand the Bush win now, I think. Kerry would likely have been a bad--or at best unnotable--president, and Democrats/liberals mistakenly thought "not Bush" was good enough to win and rallied against Bush instead of creating a unified platform to promote. My theory on the hatred of Hilary is that she didn't fit the patriarchal family image of the Christian church, besides the fact she's a social liberal.

[charlie]

Looks like I am a voice crying in the wilderness on
this topic. Think I will find John Galt and go fishing.

Charlie, the Bible-thumping stupid Nazi neo-conservative far right wing Neanderthal bigoted
stupid Christian who is trying to eliminate the
separation of church and state and destroy our status
in the world community. I forgot to throw in war
mongering, budget busting cowboy who is a closet
wizard practicing voodoo and eating babies at midnight
mass.

I should have followed Ol-Rancher's advise and just
fade into the sunset.

Piss on all of your shoes.

[JWV]

Where is JohnGalt? Whose day was it to watch him, anyway?

And thanks, Chuck, for clarifying your position. I just wish people would stop trying to legislate religion and morality, especially when they think their religion and morals are the only correct ones.

Judy

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Chuck-Lyn has it right. *I think a moderate, common-sense democrat could have cleaned George W.'s clock. Personally, I grossly misunderestimated the power of the evangelical vote. *Guess I'll know better next time.

No. This just isn't correct. Kerry is a moderate, common-sense democrat. He was only painted to be far left by the Bush administration. They would have used their attack machine to paint any candidate the same way. And when I hear pro-Bush people talk about the need to be a fiscal conservative, I have to think they are either dramatically ill-informed or deluding themselves. GWB has managed to become the most irrisponsible financial leader the world has ever seen. His deficit build up is truely unprecedented.

The real loser in this election was the truth. This administration raised the level of the lies and the extent to which they would turn up their attack machine beyond anything we have seen in many decades (maybe longer).

Exactly. If Kerry was a protestant governor from a red state, he probably would have won. These characteristics (religion, and where you are from) are important to some people. It's very difficult for a senator to be elected as president. It's too easy to distort the record. Those bills are filled with garbage amendments.

[BigMoneyJim]

I just did some election results browsing after watching some TV and reading some articles. If you look at county results it seems fairly consistent to me that large population centers went for Kerry and rural areas were for Bush.

I think it's time we social liberals start listening to what the right is saying. Sure we don't agree with much of it, but a few things were so important that Iraq, Bush's lies and the economy weren't enough to lose him the election.

I'm not saying we should agree with it or go along, but we should listen. Sure it makes no sense to us why someone in rural Alabama would care that two men in San Francisco want to be married, but it's deeply important to a large portion of the U.S. population in a way the social liberals left behind a long time ago. I'm beginning to understand the right's cries of liberal elitism when our reaction to such objections is to call them backwards, stupid, neanderthal or bible thumping. Well guess what? about 51% of the voters seem to be thinking that way, because I don't believe 51% of the voters are thrilled with Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Gay marriage is just one of several hotbutton issues, but after this election we liberals can no longer afford to dismiss such objections as backward. We've lost touch with half the population and have been too busy patting each other on the back over how advanced and progressive we are to notice. I know we haven't figured this out as a whole yet because we've already picked a new term for our adversaries: "evangelical Christians". What the hell does that mean? As far as I can tell that means all Christians except Unitarians. Let's quit "fighting" the right and start listening and consider the possiblity that half the country can't now accept liberal agendas like state-condoned gay marriage.

Chuck-Lyn earlier asked if it made us feel better that 51% of the voters were happy. I'm changing my answer to that in an odd way it does. The minority had some strong opinions that the majority was dismissing, and they organized and became the majority. This is a great country. I hope the rest of the left starts noticing this and deals with the divide more constructively than "continuing the fight".

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Well Jim...51% of the voters are happy with what they THINK they voted for. Remembering back to my comment that the majority of republicans still think hussein was behind 9/11 even though the Bush administration now claims they never said that...

SG is right...I know spin when I see it, and this administration has been all about it. An old marketing adage is that if you repeat the same thing often enough, dont crack, and dont ever give even an inch...after a while you get a nice split where most people believe you because they've heard it so often, and a chunk of people who keep looking at the data and dont listen to you dont believe you. Sound familiar?

I want two things in principal from my government...essentially honesty and to stick with what government is good at. Building roads, securing the borders, etc. I dont need one that tells me something (on frickin video tape) and later says they never said that, followed by some spinmeisters explanation that in context and conjunction with this and that, they really DIDNT mean that. Makes Clintons "define the word 'is'" sound like a kids game.

I dont need my government legislating morality or leaning into any religious alignment. Simply because not everyone agrees on what morality or religion is 100% for everyone. Leave morality and religions to the churches, temples and mosques where it belongs. Leave morality to each communities standards.

But Kerry cant blame anyone except his handlers. Karl Rove set rat holes in front of him and he fell into each one and gyrated in it until Rove got bored of that rathole and laid out another one.

"You're a flip flopper"..."No, I'm not. Every politician faces situations where they have to re-evaluate their positions and sometimes make compromises...something the current administration doesnt understand...next question."

"You arent a hero of the vietnam war"..."At least I answered my countries calling and served on the front lines of a war I didnt agree with...its true that after the war I protested what I felt were unacceptable actions that I saw take place there. Its up to each of us to stand up for what we believe in, not run from it...besides, why are we still talking about a war from 35 years ago? The main point is *I* know what its like to shoot at and be shot at and I'll think about that before committing your sons and daughters to fight on behalf of the united states...I'll make sure its for good reasons and that they're sent to fight a fight that can be won...next question".

Lastly, he fought to not lose. All defense. Except for the 2000 baltimore ravens, thats never worked and probably wont again. His folks figured any candidate named "Not Bush" would win.

But Charlie...its not that people are dumb. Its just that a 51% majority of people who may not have seen through a professional spin campaign and who agree on a set of religious and moral considerations all felt the same way about something. Unfortunately the other 49% feels very, very differently. Its not an area that can be compromised on or that someone can come to feel better about. Its a wedge down the middle of our country...literally. If you're a christian middle american, its comforting to have your president also act like one. As long as you can remember you've really got a rich white skull and bones yalie from maine pretending to be a middle american.

Its why this country's founders very carefully stipulated a separation of church and state. Keep the government governing and let the religious folks choose their own places to worship, to limit religious and moral persecution.

Its a lack of understanding, cultural commonality, and coexistence of religious and moral understandings that bring us such lovely places as the middle east and our current contentions with muslim terrorists. We've apparently decided that we like that so much we're going to introduce it to and enjoy it here in our own country.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Looks like I am a voice crying in the wilderness on this topic. *Think I will find John Galt and go fishing. Charlie, the Bible-thumping stupid Nazi neo-conservative far right wing Neanderthal bigoted stupid Christian who is trying to eliminate the separation of church and state and destroy our status in the world community. *I forgot to throw in war mongering, budget busting cowboy who is a closet wizard practicing voodoo and eating babies at midnight mass. I should have followed Ol-Rancher's advise and just fade into the sunset. Piss on all of your shoes.

Well, as an East-coast limousine liberal, allow me to ralph on your shoes in return.

FWIW, I am something of the opinion that Kerry lost because he is Catholic. Can't let those papists run the country, now can we?

Kerry lost because he is an Eastern liberal
elitist c**ks****r (and his wife is ugly )

Yes, I am back and ready to rumble

Man, I have not felt this good since W. beat that old
bag Ann Richards for Texas governor when I lived in Dallas. Truly, my faith is somewhat restored in the
American voter.

John Galt

[MJ]

Quote:

Yes, I am back and ready to rumble

Glad to see your back. Thought we lost you.

Quote:

Kerry lost because he is an Eastern liberal elitist c**ks****r (and his wife is ugly )

Unfortunately you are being extremely irrational again.
Who cares about her looks.

Yeh, you can be proud and happy that you and 51% helped continue to dummy down the most poweful and dangerous position in the world.
I luv having a (reformed) beer drinking, good ol' boy with a C- average from Texas or was it the Northeast, for de Prezident.

G-d help the USA and the rest of the world.

MJ (another Eastern liberal)

[Skylark]

All I saw in this past election were liberal candidates. *Where are the conservatives? *My #1 issue is deficit spending. *Government should live within its means. *My #2 issue is fix the health insurance system, more than anything else it is stopping job growth and threatening my ability to ER. *I personally don't know how to fix it, but the health care system in this country is sick.

I spit on King George and the liberal Republican big spender pork barrel party and all those who support it.

Patooie!

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/fart.wav

[Nords]

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry."

You know, I thought in hindsight that my first post
on my return from Texas may have been a bit over the top (like a lot of my stuff ). However, I recall I always told my kids that if they had strong opinions, they should never be afraid to stand up on their hind legs
and tell the world, as long as they were not just being
deliberately hurtful and were honest. They all turnd out great, although
none is as outspoken as their father obviously.

John Galt