<p>I've come up with my own answer to the original question of "what happened?" and have decided that the Democrats lost the election because over the years the Republicans have cleverly co-opted all the good slogans. Pro-Life; Culture of Life; Morals; Family Values. Who wouldn't be in favour of all these things? I'm in favour of them all and I'm a liberal Democrat. I just don't define them the way the Republicans define them. For example: family values, to me, includes giving gay people the right to become a family. Being pro-life, to me, includes doing much much more to lessen the amount of domestic violence and teen/elder suicide. But the above statements make no real sense because these terms mean, to most people, something totally different. So, in order to win the next election, the Democrats--besides getting a candidate with a personality--don't need to go even farther to the center and become Republican lookalikes; rather they need to take back their own strong stand for decency and peace and helping those in need of help and just get some slogans the people will rally around and be galvanized by.</p>
<p>Vancat, just a question. Have you ever used such terms to describe someone with whom you disagreed? (At least, you have the comfort to know that such views are in the minority now :) ).</p>
<p>Xiggi, sorry for losing my temper. As I said, I'm still in a reactive phase. Maybe for 4 years :).</p>
<p>An economics prof with whom I correspond said that he thought that Bush would be impeached if he tried to reinstitute the draft (my hot button issue as you can tell). Does this sound right? If he does, it reminds me simply of his father's "read my lips, no new taxes" and subsequent about-face.</p>
<p>No problemo, Patient. Everything is fine. </p>
<p>We all are on edge because ... we care. It would be a lot worse if the country would show nothing but apathy.</p>
<p>searchingavalon: YOU RULE! YOu and I are on the same page and you articulate so well my exact sentiments. All this talk about "moral values" being a major issue in this election is quite annoying considering, as you point out, there is not one definition of what that is. I feel like the socially conservative voters use that to mean agreeing with THEIR moral values and I take offense that because I have different beliefs that I am not "moral" or have no "values". I believe in respect and doing my part as a peice of this world and life without pushing my personal beliefs on others. But, I guess that isn't good enough to be considered "moral".</p>
<p>Patient, in my mind there was more chance of Kerry having to reinstitute the draft than Bush. Don't fret until you hear it actually being mentioned and even then, it needs congressional approval.</p>
<p>I don't see that at all, since Kerry wanted to get out of Iraq. But what Kerry would have done is a moot point. Back to what Bush will do....</p>
<p>ok so i while i dont think kerry is a malicious person as far as senators go...he wants the title of presidency more than the chance to actually institute some of his policies which are lacking/shaky. im not saying bush is the perfect president but i think he will stand by his policies and be more of an enthusiastic leader than kerry. besides, you cant help but love bushisms ha check this out. <a href="http://www.imgag.com/product/full/ap/3067907/graphic1.swf%5B/url%5D">http://www.imgag.com/product/full/ap/3067907/graphic1.swf</a></p>
<p>It appears as if we're going to hear the Democrats complain for a long time to come. Of course this is speculation at its finest, but I honestly don't see the Democrats winning the next election either. The Republican Party is really going to stretch its muscle in the next election. They can either have John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, both of whom would attract a lot of Democratic voters as well as the typical Republicans. Maybe President Bush hasn't reached out to Democrats as much as he could, but until he physically goes out and ties them up, I don't see the Democrats agreeing with President Bush either. It's a two way deal.</p>
<p>I don't see that at all, since Kerry wanted to get out of Iraq. But what Kerry would have done is a moot point. Back to what Bush will do....>></p>
<p>Kerry said repeatedly in the debates that he would INCREASE the number of troops in Iraq in order to get the job done right. </p>
<p>But you're right, back to what Bush will do. As I said, I think he's doing fine with the VOLUNTEER military. I don't foresee the draft being called up any time soon and even if he wanted it to be, it will need congressional approval first.</p>
<p>Well, the last time I checked, he had a majority in both houses so somehow I don't see that being a big deal. </p>
<p>UCBenz--the party out of power always complains. The Republicans complained when Clinton was in power too. So much will depend on events of the next few years. I have to agree with you though, with the exception of Obama who wouldn't be ready for the next election I don't think, and would face the silent prejudice of many millions of white Americans particularly in the South, I see more dynamic Republican leaders than Democrats right at the moment. </p>
<p>I think Hillary Clinton is exceptionally smart, but I see her as being too divisive and sharp to galvanize a sufficiently large part of the electorate.</p>
<p>I couldnt help but chime into this thread. It took me forever to read it. Every time I started, I couldnt finish because I needed to work. When I came back, it was twice as long! </p>
<p>Im saddened by the election. I was not enamored w/ Kerry, but I am frightened of Bush, and many of those he surrounds himself with. And, I deeply resent the news media and even those on this board stating that Bush won by a wide majority, or that it was so decisive. Perhaps I do not fully understand political rhetoric, but clearly 49% of the population DO NOT AGREE with his methods, his ideals, his personality, his policies whatever. That certainly does not give him the right to ignore this 49%, and assume that the US is backing him 100%. That does not constitute a wide majority in my opinion. If I knew that nearly half of the population (or company, or school, or family or whatever body you are leading) does not agree with me, I would reach out to that half to at least try to understand their viewpoint! </p>
<p>Bush has a position of public SERVICE, but I do not see him even reaching out much beyond his personal enclave, and even then feels he is being guided by HIS god. What arrogance! I do not personally care what his individual religion happens to be. I DO care that he feels it gives him the authority to act as he does without the input of others. I deeply care that he does not have the willingness to look at his actions and even consider the possibility that mistakes may have been made. We are supposed to learn from mistakes. That is human. We are not supposed to ignore, or even worse, deny them!</p>
<p>I was SOOOO hoping that we could tell the world that we too do not necessarily agree with him, and by changing leaders, to reach out to them. WHY do you think these countries hate Bush (and us) so? Has anyone ever taken the initiative to truly ask? </p>
<p>Did anyone see Nightline, with the brief article about the UK community that adopted an Ohio community? Each UK person wrote another in the Ohio town. Their purpose was to share their views, and to ask their readers to please consider the wider perspective that if we would only work together, we just might be able to combat terrorism. The responses were embarrassing! Im sure they were the more sensational ones for news purposes, but nonetheless outright embarrassing. Things were stated like if you would only brush your teeth, maybe we would take you seriously In general, we told them to &%$# off. What arrogance!</p>
<p>I was personally appalled at the swift passages of all the State marriage amendments, most being passed by individuals who believe their moral values were being eroded. WHOSE moral values? Christian? What about the Muslim, the Jew, the American Indian, the Agnostic? Once upon a time, blacks and whites could not get married either. The MAJORITY believed that it was wrong! That makes it okay? Once upon a time, one leader believed Jews were less than human, and most sat by and did nothing, because either they agreed, or at least it did not affect them personally. We are seeing our civil liberties eroded. We must be willing to accept and even fight for those whose opinion we DO NOT necessarily share! </p>
<p>And why is the gay issue of such importance, when the raping of our environment or the proliferation of careless sex & violence in the media is being ignored? </p>
<p>Members of my own extended family voted for Bush because in their words: Im voting for the candidate who will help my pocketbook. I think that was true for many. That is a sad commentary to me. I am more scared of the world we are leaving to our children, and the price they will have to pay for it!</p>
<p>Was my vote for Kerry or against Bush? Probably more so against Bush. But also deep down (and after reading his biography), I was more impressed w/ Kerrys life. I was more impressed with his children, his beliefs, his drive for public service, and his history. Many have stated Kerry was out of touch from the middle class, but from what I read in the biography, it is really only recently with his marriage to Teresa, that this is true. Much of his upbringing was much more middle class than we think (although it had the appearances of the upper class). Bush is no different in the privilege department. The down-home Texas aura is just as packaged.
While Kerry definitely had a personal drive for the presidency, I also felt he had a desire to serve. Bush spent most of his life wandering, and I feel competing for competitions sake. I do believe Kerry was packaged badly. I couldnt stand the repetitive rhetoric of the campaign trail. The same was true, of course, for Bush. Both of these candidates seemed fronts for political machines during this campaign. I just think there is more behind the Kerry front than the Bush one.</p>
<p>FWIW: Independent from the Midwest</p>
<p>kjowfkw....you have a lot of company here, and your message was heartfelt. I agree that I too am quite puzzled by the interpretation of the vote as a mandate. I do not believe that Kerry, had he been victorious, would have been anywhere NEAR as arrogant and triumphant. To some extent this mandate idea is true in comparison with other elections where the winner did not receive more than 50%, but his margin and his majority is only by so little. And just as the religious right apparently did not come out to vote in the last election, how can anyone be sure that the same didn't happen in reverse this time around--that many who do NOT agree with the Bush/Republican platform/agenda aren't just silent this time and will be at the polls the next time? (Particulary the huge youth vote which didn't turn out)</p>
<p>America is a huge, diverse country--perhaps in fact that is the problem, it is too huge and too diverse to be governed effectively by one leader any more, especially a polarizing leader, of either side of the political/social spectrum, and the pendulum will just continue to swing back and forth and back and forth, with no real long-term, consistent agenda to solve the really serious problems in our country that are contributing to so much future danger and suffering.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I was SOOOO hoping that we could tell the world that we too do not necessarily agree with him, and by changing leaders, to reach out to them. WHY do you think these countries hate Bush (and us) so? Has anyone ever taken the initiative to truly ask? </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>The French government "hates" us because they had sweetheart deals with Sadaam Hussein under the Oil For Food Program and assurances that they would have exclusive oil development rights when UN sanctions were finally lifted.</p>
<p>As far as reaching out: According to UK newspapers tonight, Iraq Prime Minister Allawi is flying to Brussels to meet with the heads of the European Union countries tomorrow regarding the rebuilding of Iraq. French President Chirac is snubbing Allawi, leaving Brussels before Allawi arrives. Chirac did, however, clear time in his schedule to visit Yasar Arafat yesterday.</p>
<p>Thank you Kjofkw, I needed that. I went to bed quite angry last night after reading comments on this board and seeing the recap of Bush's press conference. </p>
<p>Carolyn, I do watch Fox news at least once a week to get a perspective. I usually find the democratic view outnumbered and a tone of discourse that I find quite low- they are usually attacking Kerry for petty character issues. I believe their is a systematic effort led by Karl Rove to mischaracterize, demean, and delegitimize the Democrats and I think Fox news is a participant. I tuned into their morning show and was treated to the usual juvenile sport of picking on everthing Kerry from mentioning botox and a comment THKerry made a year ago regarding Howard Dean. Yes it's a morning show where they talk about fluff but if you compare it to a network morning show the difference is astounding. On their more serious news analysis there is admittedly more substance but not usually a fair balance. Many times the democratic view is presented by geeky or less established pundits with the exception of Mara Laison (?) and Juan Williams. And I'm sorry, I don't care how intelligent the discourse can be with Bill O'Reilly, I think he is a blight on this country and our national media. His legitimacy only serves to lower the level of political discussion to a shouting match. </p>
<p>That being said, I don't blame Fox for what Kerry and the Democrats lost. I blame Fox for muddying the waters, focusing on personality instead of issues and generally making it harder to get at the truth. This is not just my opinion. It is supported in research. Fox helped reinforce the message that Iraq was tied to 9/11, something that a large proportion of the electorate still believes.</p>
<p>Carolyn,
This is a quote from Krugman's column today. He is considered by Republicans to be a left wing nut case. I don't agree of course but if someone whom they consider to be extreme makes this statement, it illustrates my point that the media does not lump all church goers together.</p>
<p>"Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage."</p>
<p>Mini: Regarding the single mom's and college students who did not vote. Shame on the college students; I can only assume they were too lazy and spoiled not to follow the issues and get out and vote. I worked very hard here in Southwest Ohio to get out the vote by canvassing, making phone calls, and checking polls. We did get out 25,000 votes in Rob Portman's county. They were mostly union workers and other random people who could think for themselves. I spent a lot of time talking to the working poor. Some came out for Kerry. Many others said that they heard both parties talking about working for the middle class and nobody talking about them. I winced every time I heard Kerry say, "I will fight for the middle class." One lady told me that neither party ever did anything for her and that if she registered to vote all it would get her is jury duty. I do think Kerry made the mistake of following the advice of his handlers to pander to the duck hunters and the Christians. He could have done a better job if he had spoken from the heart and trusted his own instincts. I will also point out that Cahill did a very poor job running the campaign. I volunteered early in the campaign and was never taken up on my offer to be a precinct captain, etc. Our Kerry office was set up a month before the election, and the organizers were brought in from San Francisco and Indiana. We received our signs and buttons a week before the election and promised cell phones, food, etc. never happened. Very poor reflection on the Democrats' ability to organize and to recognize the significance of Ohio.</p>
<p>Others may disagree, but I always thought a 5% difference in the popular vote was a landslide, and 3%+ is more than sufficient to give a mandate, especially with the historically high voter turnout of the 2004 election.</p>
<p>I understand that 48% of the electorate does like like this turn of events, but turnabout is fair play. The election does not mean that president Bush should get 51% of his objectives completed, or that the final legislation on each issue should be 51% toward his position and 48% toward the Democratic position. This is not what bipartisanship means.</p>
<p>In being a "uniter" or a "bipartisan" president, Bush has a moral obligation to ask Democrats to get on board with his positions, to give them a chance to be heard. But president Bush does not have an obligation to shape policy in some middling manner, half Bush and half Kerry because of the 48/51 spilt.</p>
<p>The same thing goes for the Supreme Court. Bush's obligation is to appoint Justices that reflect his conservative values. When the Democrats were in power (and they will be again) they appointed Liberal justices, not centrists. Now the pendulum swings the other way, and Bush should appoint according to his philosophy. If the electorate does not like the results, they will elect a Liberal President next time who can appoint some balancing Liberal justices (as Clinton did with Ruth Bader Ginsburg). Also, it is important to remember that justices change their philosophy over time. Souter was appointed by Bush I and was thought (wrongly) to be a reliable conservative (instead he's a reliable Liberal justice). O'Connor was also supposed to be a conservative, but she is often a swing vote on the court.</p>
<p>Again, I suggest that the Democrats will be in power again when they abandon some or all of thier most inflammatory leftist positions forever. They may need to abandon them, lose one election and then stay to the right to demonstrate to the red-state popualce that they mean it, before they can be elected again to run the country. The decline of the power of the Democratic party is a fifty-year-plus event, not one election influenced by Christian moral values.</p>
<p>"Again, I suggest that the Democrats will be in power again when they abandon some or all of their most inflammatory leftist positions forever."</p>
<p>Such as?</p>
<p>"I understand that 48% of the electorate does like like this turn of events, but turnabout is fair play."</p>
<p>what exactly is the turnabout. Last time I checked Republicans were in power. And yes turnabout is fair play in the world of sports and gamesmanship. There is a whole other world of psychology in human relationships that would tell you that the "tit for tat mentality" will only drive two individuals or in this case two sides of the country further apart. Frankly, I find the tone of the "moderates" as well as full fledged Republicans to be verging on a "kick em while their down" mentality , even gloating.</p>
<p>I would like to thank Michael Moore, George Soros, Leonardo, Paris, Dan Rather, Usama, Carmen, The Boss, John Stewart, P Diddy, Eminem, Barbra Streisand, Christina Aguilera and all the rest of the pro-Kerry, self-annointed voices of values for mobilizing the middle-America vote.</p>
<p>"self-anointed"; another child left behind.</p>