Why Kerry Failed

[GePap]

I just finished this Jane Smiley piece. I didn't read the whole thing. I just read excerpts to you. Slate.msn.com. Paul Krugman, I've got that here today. I may go through a little bit of that. But the thing that strikes me about this is these liberal twits can look down on anyone they choose to. They can sit around and, as a matter of policy, attack the stupidity of anyone they choose and get away with it. They are never called on the carpet for it.

Can't he even be internally consistent on his "arguement" even over one paragraph?

[Ned]

GePap, clearly he means "by the elite media."

[JohnT]

After a few days, the general consensus is that the Democrats lost because of the condescending and overbearing tone that they've taken to Bush supporters over the past 4 years, especially the past 2. As my wife asked "why would I want to vote for somebody who will still look down upon me even if I do support them?"

Neither GePap nor Jane Smiley seem to agree with this, which is why their ideology will lose even more support the more they maintain this theme.

[JohnT]

Here, GePap, take some lessons from the OP on this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...8&pagenumber=1

[pchang]

However GePap and Jane Smiley are prime examples of it.

[JohnT]

Precisely.

[GePap]

Ohh, the poor babies don't like to be talked down to

Its amzing, given that the Poly consensus was at least a 2 to 1 margin for Kerry, at least amongst this population- so now we get the Bush backers talking about how its cause we liberals talk down to the ignorant herds. Oh, and how are we supposed to talk to the respondents of that poll that thought WMD's were found in Iraq?

Maybe you guys are fine showering the rest of us with your feelings of inadequacy, but the good ol' exit polls show that this "general consensus" (which is bull, given the vast majority of posters have not actually participated) is crap.

Talking down to the religious right does nothing to change their "value votes", nor does it change the votes on "terrorism".

If we look at the issues and how they stacked for each candidate, its clear the election came down to people chosing based on what they see as their moral values, or a judgement on the 'strenght' of the candidate (Bush backers) vs. concerns for your economic well-being and deep concerns about the tenor of the current FP (kerry voters). This whole "please, oh, please, stop pointing out our idiocy or we won;t vote for you!" seems pointelss then, given what the exit polls said.

But if the righties need to keep whinning about how us oppresive lefties make them feel inadequate, go right ahead.

[Ming]

The pot calling the kettle black

[GePap]

Cause the kettle is black- its called intellectual honesty

The asumption that the red base might be bigger than the blue base might be true, it might not (given that voter turnout amongs groups considered the blue base remains bellow that of those considered the red base)- we will never know until we had 100% voter participation.

Until that day thought, it is absurd for dems. to think they have to pander to the right-wingers, and act like Dr. Phil and make them feel adequate. NO, its for democrats to actually create a system of aims, to redefine the battlefield just like the republicans did to us over the last 30 years, and take back the country. And if that makes people out in Kansas feel like they are being talked down to, well, they need to get over themselves.

[General Ludd]

In America there are only two reasons to vote.

1. To stop someone else from being elected.
or
2. to spite your political adversaries and/or to 'stick it' to people that you don't like.

Vote Kerry to get rid of Bush

Vote Bush to stick to them stupid elitist liberals

[GePap]

Democrats win again when they can show why having kids go hungry in America is a bigger disgrace than having gays marry in America.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT
After a few days, the general consensus is that the Democrats lost because of the condescending and overbearing tone that they've taken to Bush supporters over the past 4 years, especially the past 2. As my wife asked "why would I want to vote for somebody who will still look down upon me even if I do support them?"

Far be it from me to comment on your wife, JohnT, but while she may feel attacked by the "left" in America, does she give any thought to how the "left" might have felt since the days of Reagan, with the constant belittling attackes, the equation with traitors and whimps and hating America, etc.?

Not that I can recall any period of civility in our political life, but for the last 25 years, it is gotten worse, especially so in the last decade. The level of vitriol with which the right has heaped eveyone else has been beyond the norm. Neither side seems to have any love for the other, but starting with right-wing radio and concluding with the Clinton impeachment, the level of hate by the right for the left has grown massively.

After the theft of the 2000 election by massive electoral fraud in Florida and then the decision of the right to use 9/11 as a way to push their agenda, it is any wonder those who opposed Bush began to reciprocate the level of hatred thrown their way.

How many times did we have to hear about Democrats being too stupid to vote properly? This goes both ways. If the Democrats should be ashamed for thinking ill of their opponents, then how can Republians stand to walk under the light of the sun?

The Republicans escalated the fight. Now they want the Democrats to start treating them nicely? I don't think it's gonna happen. I think it's gonna get worse.

[Patroklos]

After the theft of the 2000 election by massive electoral fraud in Florida.

And you all claim reason is on your side after those tired and unproven accusation persist

Clue for you, just because you sat in a political protest against the torture of tomatoes in salad bars does not make you smart or intelligent. I routinely call liberals idiots/morons/whatever (though not nearly as much I receive the same back) but I don't make the automatic assumption that my opinion is somehow vetted as reason and scientific proof. Some where down the line liberals made the jump that whatever they say has automatic status as smart and witty. Normally because other liberals at the coffee shop like what they said and congratulate them, and after years of jerking themselves off convinced themselves of the delusions.

Who was it in here whose justfication for liberal philosophy always having the weight of fact originationg from "liberalism" having begun in the Enlightenment, so obviously being enlightened? Common liberal overexaggeration/delusion/whatever to get their rocks off.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Marx had something to do with that.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Far be it from me to comment on your wife, JohnT, but while she may feel attacked by the "left" in America, does she give any thought to how the "left" might have felt since the days of Reagan, with the constant belittling attackes, the equation with traitors and whimps and hating America, etc.?

Maybe because the left-wing internationalist suck-ups are at least marginally traitorous, America-hating whimps? If they stop hating America because Americans drive SUVs and have a very high standard of living that their forefathers worked very hard to achieve over the last 200 years, we'd stop calling them America-hating.

If they stop hating Americans who don't want to kiss the UN's corrupt buttocks any time we want to deal with trouble-makers in the world we'd stop calling them traitors and whimps.

Not that I can recall any period of civility in our political life, but for the last 25 years, it is gotten worse, especially so in the last decade. The level of vitriol with which the right has heaped eveyone else has been beyond the norm. Neither side seems to have any love for the other, but starting with right-wing radio and concluding with the Clinton impeachment, the level of hate by the right for the left has grown massively.

Question: How old are you, 30? 35? What do you know of politics before 25 years ago? Both the Kennedy and Johnson campaigns were ugly and marred by old-style ballot-box-stuffing. Johnson's political machine in Texas is the only reason he was on Kennedy's ticket.

Talk about ugly, the '72 Nixon campaign (the first in my personal memory) was nasty, including the attempted assassination of one of the candidates! The stuff we've seen in 2000 and 2004 is mild. But the media says it's bad because their guys are the ones who couldn't hack it and whined the loudest when they lost.

After the theft of the 2000 election by massive electoral fraud in Florida and then the decision of the right to use 9/11 as a way to push their agenda, it is any wonder those who opposed Bush began to reciprocate the level of hatred thrown their way.

By "massive" fraud you mean the Democratic refusal to count 14000 absentee ballots from overeas military that the Dems believed would favor Bush, or the Dem hacks in the FL SC disregarding Florida law to allow recounts to continue after Dec 18, or the Dems' routine false claims of intimidation of black voters by Republicans?

How many times did we have to hear about Democrats being too stupid to vote properly? This goes both ways. If the Democrats should be ashamed for thinking ill of their opponents, then how can Republians stand to walk under the light of the sun?

The Republicans limited their assessment of voter stupidity to those who may have punched the ballot incorrectly. The Dems call anyone and everyone who doesn't vote for their liberal-hero-of-the-moment stupid. Maybe you can see the difference...

The Republicans escalated the fight. Now they want the Democrats to start treating them nicely? I don't think it's gonna happen. I think it's gonna get worse.

No, che, the Dems did that under Reagan when they attacked Bork and Thomas, and under Bush with the incessant "stole the election" crap, and many times in between.

We don't expect the Dems to start treating us nicely. Not going to happen. We just want to make sure the truth is as widely known as possible: the Dems' ugly, demeaning opinions on all who fail to acknowledge their inherent right to rule.