Why Kerry Failed

[JohnT]

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



Yes -- isn't terrible that a Vietnam War veteran who in his determination to get the truth out about the Vietnam War, made the mistake of exaggerating some of the aspects of the war, and other people would never look pass the mistakened exaggerations, and look at the reason why Kerry was protesting in the first place?

Kerry could have undone a lot of the animus had he simply apologized.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
Its funny how everybody is looking for a "reason" that explains why Kerry lost. It is really simple...ALL things considered, the MAJORITY felt that Bush would be a better President. It really is that simple folks.

Hard for the lefties to take, but nonetheless true.

Actually, given that we did not have 100% voter participation, a majority of those who went to vote chose Bush- meaning if the Democrats got more ;people who might agree with them to vote, say 4 million more (which is about 1.8% of the population only), they would have won, at least the popular vote.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Well it was. Aside from the fact she fell for many right-wing lies outright, she eventually says that she voted for Bush because at least he has values. She doesn't agree with them, but at least he has them. The stupidity of that statement is just mind boggling. One could vote for David Duke for the same reasoning. Hell, you could vote for me for the same reason. I don't like what he'll do, but at least he'll do it????

Meh. She did a much better job of explaining herself than you did of reading it, che.

Her problem is that she fell for all the BS showered on us daily from the left. She knows Bush has values, and probably feels that there is palpable good in them. But because the media never shows that side of Bush she hasn't seen it. She knows the crap comparing conservatives to Hitler, et al. is wrong, but she doesn't know how to shake the feeling the endless stream of media crap conveys.

She explained why she can't side with the rabid abortionistas, and why she can't side with those who would legally equate abortion with capital murder. Nowhere does she say she opposes any of Bush's actual positions, only that some half-baked media image of Bush make her feel "queasy."

The Patriot Act is not an excuse for abridgement of rights and liberties. Those rights and liberties are not ends to themselves, and Patriot is an accomodation to the reality of terrorism and modern tech that could not be envisioned 20 years ago (much less 200). But she worries because the media have told her to worry.

She worries about Ashcroft. Why? The feeling is so vague she can't even express it. Clearly she has absorbed the animus coming from the left. She has absorbed decades of media demonization of Falwell and Robertson, but I doubt she has ever read their books or seen more than a few moments of a TV program while channel-surfing.

This is typical of touchy-feely personalities. As one man said, "Life is a tragedy to those who only feel, but to those who think it is a comedy." She's caught in between, trying to think about her feelings instead of thinking through the feelings to find their roots.

She admits that her primary sources are the left-trying-to-be-mainstream media and the left-revealing-its-vile-hatefulness AAR. She clearly dismisses actual conservative voices in her search because of "feelings" about them. But what part of those feelings are preconditioned by the litany of deprications pronounced upon Limbaugh and FoxNews? She feels that she has to ward off that typical leftist judgmentalism by claiming she doesn't listen or watch either.

No wonder her intestines are in a knot: that's what you get from drinking whine vinegar all the time.

[My spelling is atrocious today]

[Straybow]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, given that we did not have 100% voter participation, a majority of those who went to vote chose Bush- meaning if the Democrats got more ;people who might agree with them to vote, say 4 million more (which is about 1.8% of the population only), they would have won, at least the popular vote.

What? You mean the more votes one side gets, the more likely it is to be elected? Somebody nominate GePap for a Nobel Prize in Political Theory. He's a friggin' genius!

"If more Democrats had voted the Democrats would have won." Yep, that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

[Ned]

Limbaugh today has again said that the main reason the Democrats lost is that their message was one of anger. He agreed that that not only did not communicate any "positive" message - a reason to vote "for" any of their candidates; it generated a strong backlash by the opposite party who themselves were angry about attacks on them. (Remember Edwards saying that anyone who would vote for Bush was insane?)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun



Yes -- isn't terrible that a Vietnam War veteran who in his determination to get the truth out about the Vietnam War, made the mistake of exaggerating some of the aspects of the war, and other people would never look pass the mistakened exaggerations, and look at the reason why Kerry was protesting in the first place?

Actually the most telling of all for anyone really taking a look at Kerry was the old Cabot show Kerry vs. O'neil debate. O'neil pwned him then but one needs to have the perspective of time to understand just how much.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


See, I love this. Limbaugh gets his knickers in a knot about liberals calling conservatives "ignorant," but then admits he's never heard of Jane Smiley, one of the most prominent authors in the US and winner of two of the US's most prestigous literary awards (the National Book Critics Circle Award and the Pulitzer Prize, both for A Thousand Acres; the novel was also a best-seller).

Here's the deal: if you've never heard of one of your country's foremost literary figures, you're ignorant. By definition.

I'd bet upwards of 95% of literate Americans don't know who she is. Which makes her obscure, regardless of how many awards she's won. Ignorance of Pulitzer prize winners is simply ignorance of mediocrity.

[Ned]

What I still find amazing is that Kerry never apologized for his antiwar activities and statements that outraged so many. Even a blithering idiot should know that to get to be elected president you have to appeal to a broader audience than Massachusetts or the radical left. Anyone looking for strong Commander in Chief would really have to wonder about a man who defames and denigrates his fellow soldiers the way Kerry did.

(Which he did again and again in this campaign as well by attacking the performance of the military in Afghanistan and Iraq.)

[JohnT]

Well, to apologize would imply that he now thinks he was wrong to do what he did... which would piss off another group of constituents.

[Arrian]

I suppose that MA + the radical left = 49% of the voting public. Is that a scary thought over there in the Nedaverse? Or is it perhaps possible that you are exaggerating a wee bit when you declare Kerry supporters are the "radical left?" But I forget myself - Ned never exaggerates, spins or outright lies. No. He's a conservative. They don't do such things.

Do you actually think an apology would have helped Kerry? I doubt it. It would have just been labeled another flip-flop by the Right and done him no good at all. The vets who were angry at him would have remained so and voted for Bush anyone. The people who respected the guts he showed in protesting would have lost respect for him. Lose-lose.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
I suppose that MA + the radical left = 49% of the voting public. Is that a scary thought over there in the Nedaverse? Or is it perhaps possible that you are exaggerating a wee bit when you declare Kerry supporters are the "radical left?" But I forget myself - Ned never exaggerates, spins or outright lies. No. He's a conservative. They don't do such things.

Do you actually think an apology would have helped Kerry? I doubt it. It would have just been labeled another flip-flop by the Right and done him no good at all. The vets who were angry at him would have remained so and voted for Bush anyone. The people who respected the guts he showed in protesting would have lost respect for him. Lose-lose.

-Arrian

But, Arrian, don't you think it a tad bit bizzare for the Dems to nominate a man with Kerry's record and then run him as a strong commander in chief?

[Arrian]

The concentration on his war record was a mistake, which I believe I said at the time (along with most people on 'poly). There was no point. The Dems were not going to puncture the Myth that Bush is a great warrior and they weren't going to be able to sell Kerry as a greatER warrior. So they should've just left it alone.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
The concentration on his war record was a mistake, which I believe I said at the time (along with most people on 'poly). There was no point. The Dems were not going to puncture the Myth that Bush is a great warrior and they weren't going to be able to sell Kerry as a greatER warrior. So they should've just left it alone.

-Arrian

Arrian, but really now, the issue about being a good wartime leader was on the table. His Vietnam record could not be avoided.

Nominating Kerry would have made sense if the Dems wanted to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible, consistent with Kerry's record on the Vietnam War.

[Arrian]

No, it couldn't be avoided. It shouldn't have been TOUTED, however.

That being said, I personally find Kerry's record better than Bush's.

Oh, nice troll attempt at the end there.

-Arrian