Rubes of Hicksville: Welcome to My Arrogance BBQ

We're Roasting Rednecks and Bleeding Hearts Tonight

http://tabootenente.tblog.com
from JoeUser Forums
I've read your articles regularly as you post them. I think in general, it's fair to say I disagree, on a political level, with your opinions almost unilaterally.

Nevertheless, Draginol is completely correct, concerning his recent article, "My problem with the American Left".

1)There's no two ways about it: Democrats are embarrassed that GWB was re-elected.
2)We cannot believe that a majority of the country supports the direction our nation is headed.
3)I apologize.

We're just blogging, here, okay? If we cannot blog with honesty, then what's the point? We write because we like to write, because we have something to say, and because we want to be understood.

I apologize to the rest of the world that GWB has four more years.
I apologize to conservatives for my arrogant attitude.

Both are open-hearted, honest statements. I am raising my right hand as we speak, so to speak.

Conservatives: If you care at all about unifying the political divide, if you are honestly concerned about the level of partisanship, you need to understand this: it may be arrogance, it may be tunnel vision, but Democrats do not understand why people voted for George Bush. And we are in disarray. We do not know what to do. Yes: it is arrogance, plain and simple; but that does not make it any easier to correct our position.

Liberals: If we still believe in our position, if we still believe that a crucial element of morality in this country is eroding, then we need a new voice. Consider this: John Kerry, like every other liberal (not necessarily party Democrats), wrote off the entire south, along with the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma....

We wrote them off, as in, did not try to pick up those votes. Why? If you believe the answer is something other than arrogance, let me know. When a conservative says thay he/she is sick of the label "religious right-wing", or "Rube from Hicksville" or "Redneck" or "Ignorant" or whatever the hell, what do we immediately think as a response?

No need to spell it out. Whether or not our political position is correct, our voice is wrong, and our humanity is sorely lacking. If half the country believes something different from you, we need an answer other than whiny incredulity. Okay? If you take Mississippi, I'll head off to South Dakota. Let's start talking. VP candidates can dally in California and New York if they so choose; but whomever we nominate as a Democratic candidate for president has to join us in the south, and in the midwest, and in rural, suburban, and urban America. We can't stand around consoling 49% of the population and expect the other 51% to experience a collective epiphany. Let's open our ears, and when we speak, let's try to hit the lower registers as well as the shrill ones we've already mastered.

Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum
politics
26,244 views 75 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Great post TaBoo Tenente! You get it! Please help others in your party get it too. I am a staunch conservative, but I can definitely agree with you and understand your passion in your beliefs. Have a passion for ideology does not however give you the superiority to judge those that disagree.

Thank you for your honesty.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

We wrote them off, as in, did not try to pick up those votes

i realize your statement refers to kerry and the southern/middle plains states.

both parties/sides of the politcal spectrum spent much of the last century busily smelting their respective sand castles into stunningly similar glass residences and both would be wise to remember adding cobalt oxide or gold chloride may produce distinctive blue or red walls,but color dont mean shit to a rock.  redistricting the place so one glass house appears situated in arrogance heights while the other barely inside the arrogance city limits dont either.

ascribing arrogance to another is itself an act of arrogance no?  isnt that what's known as being 'holier than thou?"

your observation reminded me of something: neither side can claim the arrogance moral high ground until its candidate visits the 15 states both avoided this time around.

hope youre plannin on servin crow and humble pie to this crowd LOL

Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Have a passion for ideology does not however give you the superiority to judge those that disagree."

Agreed. Nor does it give the ideological far right a mandate to impose their percieved "superior morality" on the 78% of Americans who do not agree with the 22% who want to do just that. Open mindedness has to be a two-way street. If the ideological far right is not open to compromising their positions while seeking to impose them on the majority, how can their even be a discussion at all? Their efforts to purge the GOP of those who do not ideologically agree with them is a perfect example of how their intollerance and rigidity is dangerous to both the GOP and to our nation. It sends a message that "if you disagree with our agenda AT ALL, you will be targeted, maligned, and attacked." There has to be room for compromise and negotiation from all sides or else our democratic republican form of government will cease to exist. That is where the far left has failed and it is where the far right will fail. We have to be able to talk to each other with out intimidating, maligning, stereotyping, and using the media to do our dirty work for us while they go off laughing all the way to the bank.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

'rubes of hicksville' could very easily be configured into a parody of 'werewolves of london'

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Would be nice IF the democrats while crying in there beer about "george" having to unify the "divide" would stop pounding on george and his policies 24/7 even now on24 hour news they just keep saying he is wrong wrong, we have a better plan {what is the better plan by the way}.Unitication must come from the LOSERS too>

I was nice this one time and did not call the democrats my usual name for them . So while NOT agreeing with OUR president, {and thats a good thing} supporting him is a must in these times.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Everybody: thank you for your responses.

I have been thinking about the "arrogance" issue for awhile. I assume, because bi-partisan politics tends to establish this polar arrangement of beliefs, that both parties have always accused the other side of arrogance.

Nevertheless, as Little_Whip mentioned somewhere in this chain, for whatever reason, our (liberal) arrogance surfaced much more strongly than usual, and in a much more offensive way than usual.

So here's my question, directed especially toward conservatives, but liberals should likewise consider:

When did you first start feeling the effect of this attitude, this arrogance? For conservatives, I'm asking at what point you felt the liberal perspective shifted from simply partisan to obnoxious? For liberals, I'm asking at what point do you feel that GWB was not merely a president you disagreed with, but that GWB was a concept that you morally opposed?

It seems to me that at some point (and again, my liberal perspective has taken a solid drubbing--it's not easy to look around and accept the problem, right now) we felt that we needed to crusade here, rather than wait for the election to come around. And we never really cared who our candidate was--at least I didn't. I was in the PHO airport when Dean went bonkers on television, and I remember thinking to myself, "Okay, check him off...who's next?" We became so passionate that it didn't matter who won, as long as it wasn't GWB.

Not only did our attitude offend some of our likely voters, ignore other likely voters, and alienate a slice of our party who by the end decided that voting for Nader was more palatable than joining the arrogant tide of our party. Now we don't know what to do. We can't believe life might go on, and might not be the disaster we imagined.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
I can't agree that it hurts to write off some areas of the country. You add up all the electoral votes for the upper mountain states except Colorado, the great plains and you don't equal up to what Texas has as far as EC votes. The population is so spread out in those areas that to try to get to enough people would be time consuming. To advertise in those areas would be fairly inexpensive, but the returns are not great because their media centers are so small.
Kerry did try to reach some areas of the South, but it became clear he could not catch up. He made efforts in NC, VA, AR, LA but came up short. If you're starting from a disadvantage, its hard to catch up. I think it would be better for a Democrat to try to get some of the South, keep their advantage in the Northeast and West Coast, but concentrate on sweeping the Big Ten states from PA to IA.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree that a candidate has to make choices, to make the best use of campaigning time.

My problem is the attitude. A Democratic candidate who decides he/she cannot make up votes in the south or the sparce populations of the mountain/ plain states is not just losing votes in those locations. The whole nation sees the attitude, at the media mirrors and amplifies the attitude. Soon, you've not only alienated those sections, those states, but an entire population demographic--thisdemographic doesn't just live in these places. They live everywhere. And when a party disenfranchises a collection of people such as this one you've not only become arrogant (we don't need that kind of voter...we don't have time to cater to that kind of voter) but you're bound to alienate other possible voters. Playing catch-up, like Kerry did in a few places, is almost as offensive as ignoring them.

On the other hand, if, from the beginning of his campaign, Kerry had established himself as someone not only bent on destroying Bush's career, but as someone who cares about people in all places, then this little effort might spread, until people everywhere might actually have liked Kerry.

Take a look at ourselves, here. I'm a liberal. And while I don't think Kerry was as bad of a candidate as other liberals seem to feel, my vote was based on the fact, like other liberals, that I was afraid what four more years would do to the country and to the world. Time will tell on that one, and I hope that my perspective WAS arrogant, and narrow, and that 51% not only saw something I did not, but that they were right. What else can we hope for now? But what if Kerry had showed a little respect at the beginning of the race, and demonstrated that he cared? He would be our president right now, I guarantee you that, and the Democratic party would not have to deal with the new derrogatory label that's sticking: arrogance. The fact that "liberal" is used in the same tone of voice as "redneck" is a problem for "liberals" and "rednecks" alike. We're becoming disenfranchised. That's why everyone is a damn moderate these days!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

When did you first start feeling the effect of this attitude, this arrogance? For conservatives, I'm asking at what point you felt the liberal perspective shifted from simply partisan to obnoxious?

There were some brewings of it before the Iraq war.  Sean Penn going to Iraq and getting a ridiculous amount of coverage as if he were somehow more knowledgeable than us non-movie-star types was when my attena first went up.  The whole "It's for the OIIILLL" crowd got on my nerves. But those were just preludes.

The point where I think partisanship (for me) moved into being obnoxious from the left was the Janet Jackson superbowl half-time incident.

For years, the liberals had told us red-state parents that we need to quit complaining about what's on TV and watch our own kids. I agreed with the liberals on that issue. I don't expect TV to be sanatized for lazy parents.  And so cable and prime time TV slowly went into the gutter (ever watch an episode of "Friends" which used to show at 8pm from the perspective of a red-stater?).  But anyway, I agreed that it's up to us to watch our kids.

So then there's the Superbowl half-time show that was pretty smutty before Janet Jackson had made her appearance.  I'm there watching it with my son. It's the superbowl. It's SUPPOSED to be something my kid can watch. I'm doing what the left had demanded - I keep an eye on what my kids watch.  And so the Janet Jackson thing happened. I was irritated but I didn't get that upset until the day after.

The day after, liberal after liberal both on TV and here on JoeUser.com showed utter contempt for our values.  The whole "You've never seen a boobie?" and "Get over it!" and "Tough, deal with it you puritans!" finally marked where the left seemed to be set collectively loose.  It was as if the left finally decided they no longer had to care about our values and views on things.

It was then that the left made it clear that they weren't interested in compromise. They did not want to take our concerns into account at all.  The whole "Watch your own kids!" thing was just BS. It was just the left's way of placating the right while they took over much of the airwaves and the Janet Jackson thing was a signal that "Hey, too bad, we're going to put OUR values on 24/7 if we can and if you don't like it, we'll ridicule you!"

Shortly after that we got Fahreinheit 9/11 which began being parroted by quasi-intellectuals as being "the truth" even though it was largely full of crap.  The same people who would call us "morons" and Bush an "idiot" were completely oblivious at how gullible and stupid they looked for buying into the propaganda in that film.

That was then followed up with Kerry having a rally with a bunch of Hollywood celebrities in which Whoopie Goldberg made crude sexual jokes about Bush using his last name and the other various Hollywood stars made crass jokes about Bush and conservatives. Kerry then said "These people are the heart and soul of America!"

The incident where I decided I was going to vote for Bush though was the RNC.  During Bush's speech, no less than 3 militant Kerry supporters had snuck in and tried to interupt the speech (And effectively did since the news cameras zoomed in on them).  The left's message to me was "OUR right of free speech is more important than your right of free speech."  Disagree with the President all you want but he has a right to give his message just as John Kerry did.  Those left wing lunatics - who aren't representative of the Democrats but Kerry and other Democrats did NOTHING to distance themselves from them - in New York that week probably cost Kerry the election.

During that whole time we would see on-line over and over posts from Kerry supporters arguing how stupid and moronic Bush and his supporters were.  I even had a friend - TRYING TO DEFEND this view equate voting for Bush like someone starting smoking. They couldn't understand whys omeone would vote for Bush just like they can't understand someone starting to smoke. He didn't think that made someone necessarily dumb but it sure struck him as a dumb thing to do.

I don't think the left is going to learn its lesson.  Michael Moore has another movie coming out and the hollywood celebrities think that they just didn't "get their message out" enough.  No, they and other left wingers got their message out. And it caused them to lose.

Like LW said, I was unimpressed with Bush to the point where I was not planning to vote for him. The left-wingers attacks on ME motivated me to make sure they didn't win the election.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like it...I like it...

Oh, I almost forgot to ask: what do we believe in? And what animal becomes our logo?

TBT
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
TaBoo, I wasn't paying much attention to Clinton's campaigning techniques at the time, I do not seem to recall him attacking anybody? I can be wrong,but it seems to be a smooth operator will win every time. lol


Like Bush

Don't tell this to Karl Rove. He's going to make the attack ad a staple of the Republicans for the next generation.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol,

I feel like I could have written most of your response. I agree with you completely...or nearly.

--I chewed on my heart everytime the press went out of its way to cover Sean Penn. Great actor. Terrible strategist.

--Fahreinheit 9/11: I really like MM, you know why? Because he always takes it back to Flint. I think he really cares, has a big heart. But now he's famous, and instead of making movies and being an all-around good guy he wants to be a journalist and a campaigner. That's fine too, but I chewed some more heart when I saw the movie. I'm not sure what he was trying to accomplish, but I think it was a disaster. I understand the liberal perspective, I understand the need to vent: as such, the movie was a collective release for us, like an exhalation of pent up frustration. But the journalism was shoddy to say the least, the editing was offensive even to me, and I would agree that the movie represents the epitome of liberal arrogance. I was ashamed when I left the theater.

--I'm not sure I agree with your J Jackson take. I watch next-to-no television these days, mainly because I find all of the reality shows condescending and boring. I did, however, watch the superbowl, and (un)fortunately I went for the bean dip during the split second JJackson intentionally blundered. How stupid! That kind of thing makes my blood curdle. But honestly, a flash of nipple does seem less scarring to me than the murders, killing, and, frankly (though here's some of my ingrained arrogance emerging), I think two hours of "The Swan( that'sthe one where they physically remake someone, right?)" is worse for a child than all of the rest put together.

One other thing: while I'm willing to accept the left-loonies on my own bill, I'm finding that conservatives tend to disassociate themselves with the right-wing extremists. It creates an unfair balance. MM offends you (me too, as I've said) into a conservative stance, but I'm supposed to view David Duke as an abnormality?

The problem is that it is a continuum. I DO have to deal with aspects of sympathizing with the left, that my beliefs unchecked and untempered with reason lead to beliefs I'm not prepared to accept. Unfortunately, that's how ideology works. Those left-loonies are distant echoes of where my own beliefs could take me, if I'm not careful. It's the same on the right. I would never claim that you support the KKK, that you want your religion practiced in my home, that you, Draginol, want to pre-emptively strike into every country that's ever flipped us the bird. But I DO expect you to take some time to understand that your ideology leads somewhere too, the farther right you look. It's essential to realize what LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE mean, should we become too polarized, too extreme.

Very thoughtful response, Draginol. Thank you.

TBT
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
For conservatives, I'm asking at what point you felt the liberal perspective shifted from simply partisan to obnoxious?


First off, I'm more conservative than not, though I break with the "conservatives" on some issues. I was NOT in GW's camp firmly in March, but by the middle of August I was trending more and more that way. The more I saw Terry McAuliffe, the angrier I got. The more I heard "Wrong war, Wrong time" and "Keep your eye on the ball" the more duplicitous I found the Dems to be. I watched each of the Democratic primary debates and was appalled at the Kerry transformation, after Dean's showings, on the Iraq war for political expediency, as well as the neglect given to Joe Lieberman. The attacks on No Child Left Behind (which Kennedy had a HUGE hand in) served to further my perception of a duplicitous DNC. Michael Moore sitting next to Carter at the Dems Convention served to solidify my belief that the fringe left had hijacked the party.

But mostly, it was the personal attacks on GW. The 7 minutes he spent in a Florida classroom on 9/11, the regurgitation and legitimization of Moore's vitriole, the claim's that GW knew about 9/11 prior and let it happen, Al Gore and the Brown Shirts speech asserting Bush supporters were like Nazi's, Heinz-Kerry and the assertion that people that didn't agree with her husband on health care were idiots and, in general, the attempt to paint Bush as a lying, hateful, moronic, blundering individual bent on world domination. All served to make me become a STAUNCH Bush supporter.

I felt like my senses were insulted, my beliefs challenged and a good man attacked by a group of fringe left wackos. I don't know that any particular point was a trigger, more like a continuum that served to continuously push me to further support the Administration (from being lukewarm at best).
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
MM offends you (me too, as I've said) into a conservative stance, but I'm supposed to view David Duke as an abnormality?


Absolutley!! David Duke was not legitimized by the party whereas MM was, at least what I saw, embraced.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
The word(s) you all seem to be looking for is R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Mutual respect, pure and simple. That seems to be something in short supply on both sides.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nadeon: I agree.

TB: I think I'm with you on about 2/3 of your post. D.D. was an inaccurate example. Will using Pat Buchanon, or Oral Roberts sit more comfortably with you? Nevertheless, David Duke may not be recognized by the Republican Party, but he represents a human being who has taken rightist ideology further into the continuum (useful word). Whether liberals want to accept it or not, Stalin is just one leftist down the line, and HItler is one rightist down the other. Do not misunderstand me, please. I think it is an absurd, hyperbolic slur to compare Bush to Hitler. That wasn't my point. The important idea here is to remember that any political way of thinking that has a slight imbalance leads left or right. And every thinker should be aware where each ideology leads. The left leads to revolutionary thought, while the right leads to reactionary thought. Neither is very productive, or attractive, and both are destructive.


However, I think it's pure partisan sophistry when the conservative party labels the DNC as "duplicitous". It is not duplicitous to support a concept like "No Child Left Behind" and then to change one's mind when you see how its implementation is a disaster. It's okay to admit you were wrong. Kerry's problem, like many of us liberals, is that he wants to label Bush as WRONG, rather than vocalizing more clearly what he believes is right.

And as much as Fahreinheit 9/11 frustrated me, as did much of MM's antics as the election approached, I would never think of MM, Kerry, or Gore as the fringe left. Look, Kerry is about as middle-of-the-road as liberals get, and Gore's not far off that stride, either...or why do you think Nader keeps surfacing? Ralph Nader also is not ultra-fringe like many think; however, he's much further down the revolutionary ideology than most liberals are comfortable with. MM was obnoxious, arrogant, offensive, and unfortunately loud. I forgive him--and though you may say "Of course you would, you're a liberal" but the truth is (as I see it) that he is a good person. If you have seen all of his movies, especially the ones before his name grew bigger than his body, I think you would have a hard time believing he isn't a huge-hearted guy. Obnoxious? Arrogant? Oh yeah. Do I wish He'd kept his last movie to himself? OH YEAH! But he's a good guy.

And if you or any one of us likes to believe we are independent, free to change our minds, we're going to have to stop labeling MM as fringe-left bad guy (which he's not) and Bush as Hitler (which he is not). Bush was very careful to avoid labeling Dems this round (except for a few "liberal" epithets, here and there) while Kerry and the DNC were labeling junkies.

There it is. There's the problem.

Thanks for your thoughts.

TBT
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
And if you or any one of us likes to believe we are independent, free to change our minds, we're going to have to stop labeling MM as fringe-left bad guy (which he's not) and Bush as Hitler (which he is not). Bush was very careful to avoid labeling Dems this round (except for a few "liberal" epithets, here and there) while Kerry and the DNC were labeling junkies.


Revisionist history. Bush ran one of the most negative campaigns ever. We heard nothing of his plans for a 2nd term except the platitudes of "staying the course", "prosperity is just around the corner", "don't change horse in midstream" and "you know where I stand". There wasn't a position of Kerry he couldn't skew to the left.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm sorry but Michael Moore absolutely IS a fringe left wing kook. And until the Democrats distance themselves from people like that they'll keep losing elections.

It is telling that when you look to the right for its kooks you really have to dig.  David Duke? Man, he's been a fossil for 10+ years.  Pat Robertson has been a nobody for 14 years.  The kooky right wingers these days are people like Ann Coulter who is just an author and about as right wing as Al Franken is left wing. There is no Michael Moore of teh right. There's no Sean Penn of the right.  There's no nasty, hatefilled violent protesters on teh right.  To find that you have to go way back to the KKK (an organization founded by Democrats btw).

If the Republicans had invited David Duke to its convention to be seated in a place of honor then it would deserve to lose.  Similarly, the Democrats invited Michael Moore and seated him next to Jimmy Carter.  They embraced their kooks. And it cost them.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe I am being unclear:

As far as ideologies go, MM is not a fringe-leftist. His politics are not ultra-left. They ARE liberal, certainly, and they are not moderate. But there is a large gap between MM politics, and revolutionary politics. If you are refering to his beliefs regarding the need for a change in CAPITALISM, then he definitely falls left of center, and left of most Democrats.

And my take on David Dukes, Pat Buchanons, is not intended to saddle the conservative party with these, but to demonstrate where rightist ideolgy goes when it reaches the fringes. Perhaps someone like Ann Coultier, Ann Rand, makes more sense to you. Again, I'm not listing GOP banner-wavers. I'm talking about rightist ideology. And we both know that both the Dem and Rep parties have shifted and re-established themselves over the years. The titles have little to do with permanent ideologies.

David Duke is an example of extreme rightist ideology.
MM is not an example of extreme leftist ideology. Marx is an example of extreme leftist ideology.

MM is an example of what happens when a simple guy gets too much fame, too quickly. He starts to believe that he might actually be a simple, good guy who has to make himself heard. And he becomes, unfortunately, arrogant.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow, excellent article and great responses! I pretty much agree with you across the board.

What gets me about all of this is that the entire country seems to be operating from a place of personal defensiveness, as if striking out after having their feelings hurt. Is it so difficult to imagine that to the extent that conservatives feel their value system threatened by obnoxious liberal spouting, so are liberals threatened by the ever-strengthening right? Not to negate the fact that there are very real feelings involoved, on both sides, but the whole country has to stop behaving like children and learn to talk to each other again. This is bigger, or smaller, than just politics.

Do we have to repeat the rules, again? Name-calling is BAD, remember that, kids. Also remember, nobody likes to have someone else's ideology crammed down their throat. Nobody. Nobody likes to have someone get in their face, figuratively or literally. That's not the way we have useful dialogue.

Actually THIS is the way, or one way. Through the reading of this article and its responses, I DID come to understand the other side's position a little better. Thanks, Draginol, for some reason through your reiterating what you've essentially said before elsewhere, made me able grasp your perspective in a way I hadn't been able to before.

my vote was based on the fact, like other liberals, that I was afraid what four more years would do to the country and to the world. Time will tell on that one, and I hope that my perspective WAS arrogant, and narrow, and that 51% not only saw something I did not, but that they were right.


-- I agree with this statement completely, but it now seems to me that even as I voted not for Kerry, but against Bush, in a defensive sort of voting stance, so apparently was the mindset of a considerable number of that 51% - except they, of course were going the other way, in defense against the whole liberal package. Or - as much as I don't want a (perceived) bunch of crooked, right-wing, good-ole-boy religious fanatics mandating how I will live my life, so does the other side fear the (perceived) amoral, loudmouthed, pseudo-intellectual, condescending sinners mandating theirs. We have to make better presentations of ourselves, on both sides.

Now, can liberal America understand that actors, while they are wealthy, have resourses, and do have views, do NOT, however, make the most impressive or credible political spokespeople? And as for MM...

But the journalism was shoddy to say the least, the editing was offensive even to me, and I would agree that the movie represents the epitome of liberal arrogance


What journalism? Doesn't anybody know this was a MOVIE presented in a journalistic-looking form? While I must say that I did enjoy the MOVIE, I found this aspect of the film oh so irritating. There is already enough drivel that passes for legitimate journalism or news, do we really need to blur the lines even futher?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #22 By: whoman69 - 11/20/2004 5:16:07 PM
And if you or any one of us likes to believe we are independent, free to change our minds, we're going to have to stop labeling MM as fringe-left bad guy (which he's not) and Bush as Hitler (which he is not). Bush was very careful to avoid labeling Dems this round (except for a few "liberal" epithets, here and there) while Kerry and the DNC were labeling junkies.


Revisionist history. Bush ran one of the most negative campaigns ever. We heard nothing of his plans for a 2nd term except the platitudes of "staying the course", "prosperity is just around the corner", "don't change horse in midstream" and "you know where I stand". There wasn't a position of Kerry he couldn't skew to the left.


Sorry but Kerry put forth no plan that anyone could see. All he could say was he had a better way.
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
Sorry but Kerry put forth no plan that anyone could see. All he could say was he had a better way.


That's exactly the view if you get your information about Kerry only from the opposition. He set out several things he would do to be able to win in Iraq. He told how he would attempt to stop outsourcing while Bush did not even admit that it was a concern or in fact was good for the economy. But Cheney and Bush took all his plans with a short phrase out of context like "sensitive war on terrorism" or "global test". Kerry put forth a plan for covering the millions of Americans without insurance while Bush and Co. simply called it socialized medicine without having any sort of plan to even significantly lower costs, only to make lawyers a scapegoat for higher costs.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #27 By: whoman69 - 11/20/2004 7:17:00 PM
Sorry but Kerry put forth no plan that anyone could see. All he could say was he had a better way.


That's exactly the view if you get your information about Kerry only from the opposition. He set out several things he would do to be able to win in Iraq. He told how he would attempt to stop outsourcing while Bush did not even admit that it was a concern or in fact was good for the economy. But Cheney and Bush took all his plans with a short phrase out of context like "sensitive war on terrorism" or "global test". Kerry put forth a plan for covering the millions of Americans without insurance while Bush and Co. simply called it socialized medicine without having any sort of plan to even significantly lower costs, only to make lawyers a scapegoat for higher costs.


Sorry but I got my information right out of Kerry's mouth during the debates. Yes he put forth a plan to *cover* Americans without health care but nowhere did he come up with were he was going to get the money to pay for it. His fiscal plans fell short of the mark.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're both right, I think.

If you take what these guys said literally during the debates, and make their statements a platform for what you think the country needs, you're going to have a fairly vague perspective. Neither spent more than 50% of their limelight doing anything but posturing or dancing. Bush looked exactly like the Dems labeled him: an unswerving thug. Kerry looked exactly like the Reps labeled him: a wiffle-waffling, arrogant liberal debater.



Kerry put forth a plan for covering the millions of Americans without insurance while Bush and Co. simply called it socialized medicine without having any sort of plan to even significantly lower costs, only to make lawyers a scapegoat for higher costs.


Kerry directed us to his web site, and liberal though I am, I have to say his healthcare plan was vague, at best.

Sorry but I got my information right out of Kerry's mouth during the debates


I find this a hard statement to swallow. I am not sure what reassurance Bush spoke about that made you clear on his position. He's been busy since the election ended, though, and I'm not sure everyone knew how intense the 2nd administration would be.

And if Kerry had been elected, I'm sure his programs would find a way of differing from his debating platform.

I guess all I am trying to say is that we're listening too intently to what our own party's spinners are saying. Most of it is just SPIN. Dems have forgotten how to listen, and how to express our thoughts. The more caustically we continue to speak, the more people we are going to alienate. Honestly. Passion is good. Tunnel-vision is bad.

Or something like that.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #29 By: TaBooTenente - 11/20/2004 7:54:27 PM
Sorry but I got my information right out of Kerry's mouth during the debates


I find this a hard statement to swallow. I am not sure what reassurance Bush spoke about that made you clear on his position. He's been busy since the election ended, though, and I'm not sure everyone knew how intense the 2nd administration would be.


I never said Bush was clear on his plans either. There was more to me voting for Bush besides Kerry's vauge plans.