<p>Does anyone sometimes wonder if we have perhaps become too big, and too diverse, to be able to hang together anymore? I know we all joke about reconstituting the country with the left and east coasts being pushed together and forming their own union, but I do agree with some of the posters above who say that it may no longer be possible to come together as one. Since it is an approximately 50/50 split, I wonder how much progress can really be made on social or economic issues since one side's agenda will be constantly criticized and undermined by the other....I realize that the vote margins in this election are not significantly different than before, but the issues were all so much more polarized.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I don't know of anyone - not a single one -- who didn't vote for Kerry because he was a Mass. liberal anymore than they wouldn't have voted for any other Democrat. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I know that you know at least one! </p>
<p>Although, in fairness, I have voted for Massachusetts liberals in different elections, different circumstances, etc. I have, in fact, voted for John Kerry over a candidate I generally prefered for tactical political balance reasons (i.e. not wanting a Republican controlled Senate).</p>
<p>BTW, don't kid yourself about John Kerry's sheep's clothing in this election. He was NOT a centrist candidate (on a traditional two-party spectrum).</p>
<p>"I think that is is probably wrong to think of "moral values" in this election as a code word for right-wing fundamentalist red-meat issues. Rather, I think it's probably more accurate to think of of it a short-hand for a more general uneasiness that the Democrats do not reflect the overall social values of mainstream America. It seems to me that the electorate probably got this right. The response among many Democrats since the election has been to attack red-state Americans as ignorant, neanderthal yahoos."</p>
<p>It really is Carville, not Carvelle, but that's neither here nor there (it's just your posts are generally flawless :)--unless we're talking about two different people? I'm talking about "It's the economy, stupid"....</p>
<p>Could you be more specific about the overall values of mainstream America? What are those? What values do you think the voters felt were being rejected by the Democrats? I have no idea what you're talking about. Most of the Democrats around here that I know are never-divorced, friendly, very hard-working, ethnically very diverse, extremely dedicated to charitable causes. Also pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-homeland security but anti-war-in-Iraq (because there was no evidence of its being a threat to our security). What specific values, or lack thereof, do you believe the Democrats espoused?</p>
<p>First off, as is probably clear from my previous posts, I do not like Bush and I do not think he has been a good president. That being said...
To Kebree and Interestedad: I agree with many points you both make. I agree that feeling hated is not at all productive. I don't actually feel extremely hated, I was only responding to a previous post. I agree with you that mainstream media leans to the left, though I just haven't seen the extreme Bush bashing everyone is talking about in the media (among people in general I have). To be fair, I don't really watch mainstream media that much, so maybe I can't really judge.
I do tend to listen to/watch some very right wing media and feel that they are vehemently hateful against Kerry, more than mainstream seems to be to Bush. I also use what I consider to be more unbiased sources such as the Wall Street Journal and NPR. I know, I know, a lot of you saying "What?" WSJ is considered right leaning and NPR left. But I really do believe those are two of the more rational media sources out there.
I also agree with Interestedad that Kerry lost this campaign as a result of not clearly defining himself and not being able to connect as a human being. I'm not whining and I think Bush won fair and square. I also realize that I am out of touch with mainstream America. I really didn't think I was, but now I know I am. I am in the minority in many of my beliefs.
However, none of this means that I'm going to give up on my beliefs or change my mind. I will continue to debate for what I think is best for this country. I will continue to support candidates, not based on their party, but based on their stand on the issues. My hope, though probably idealistic, is that eventually a good candidate will be elected and not based on strategy to become "electable" but on the good old fashioned idea of having a position that is good and rational and standing by it.
I guess that's all I have to say.</p>
<p>"He, being among the more conservative Democrats in the primary, actually got much more of a pass as a result."</p>
<p>He's the number one liberal in the Senate by his record--the most proven test. He may "act" more conservative than Howard Dean, say, but his past stances are equally (if not more) liberal than Dean's. Hardly anyone voted against the First Gulf War....I mean, it even passed Syria's "global test". Much of the votes in the Senate in the past two years (including the war ones) were motivated by pre-election jockeying. That's one problem for Kerry....his several recent "conservative" votes are not at all in line with his earlier votes.</p>
<p>Re: Lizchup's post #358 with the link to articles on what makes a good president--I was wondering if college professors or journalists enter higher political offices, and if they would be effective, why or why not? Thoughts?</p>
<p>Patient, I don't think it's those "never-divorced, friendly very hard-working, ethinically very diverse, extremely dedicated to charitable causes" democrats in your neighborhood that many people reacted to in this election. In fact, I don't think most people see your neighbors as representing the democratic PARTY at all. Who they DO see as representing the democratic party and what they did react to were people like Michael Moore and his propaganda-filled "Fahrenheight 9-11", the Hollywood crowd, led by Whoopi Goldberg calling the President of the U.S. a "thug" and a "killer" and more obsene names, News media spokespeople like Dan Rather buying biased source information whole-heartedly without investigating them because they "fit" with their personal pre-conceived notions, rock stars implying that people who do not vote the same way as them are "evil" or "stupid." I think your neighborhood Democrats and neighborhood Republicans have much in common with each other ---MOST of us are hard-working, ethnically diverse, patriotic people dedicated to the common good but unfortunately, the democratic PARTY has aligned itself with spokespeople that many Americans do not see as "like" themselves at all.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>First off, as is probably clear from my previous posts, I do not like Bush and I do not think he has been a good president. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't like Bush, either. And I don't think he's been a particularly good president. My biggest complaint is that he really hasn't shown very effective leadership post 9-11 in the sense of rallying the country in a common cause and instilling confidence.</p>
<p>About the only things I give him high marks for are:</p>
<p>1) Properly recognizing the need to aggressively take the fight to the terrorists and their supporters rather than continuing to treat the threat as a law enforcement matter</p>
<p>2) Demonstrating a consistent resolve in that policy in the face of criticism. I believe that resolve is important and has played a role in some of our "allies" reducing their enabling of terrorism.</p>
<p>3) Appointing someone with an appropriate professional background to address the mess at the CIA. There have been a lot of failures of departments in the excecutive branch before and after 9-11, but none more obvious than our intelligence failures.</p>
<p>I think you're right, carolyn---had the Democratic party leaders not pandered to Hollywood and worked instead on connecting with the average voter, Kerry would have been in the White House next January.</p>
<p>Exactly Kebree. And no amount of goose hunting or shots of John Kerry in his "middle America" LL Bean Jacket (that certainly wasn't bought at the local Wal Mart) or drinking Bud while watching the Red Socks was going to overcome those "hollywood candidate" images in the minds of many "average" Americans. I worked in advertising for many years and the first rule of marketing is send a consistent image. In a strange way, even Clinton's dalliance with Monica sent the message that he was just an ordinary joe, not much different from the average guy. I don't think anyone would argue that Bush comes across that way as well (but for different reasons). And the few celebrities he was seen with were mostly country-western stars. People with "traditional" lifestyles. The message was" the Republican PARTY is the "traditional lifestyle" party. The democratic PARTY is the "Hollywood lifestyle" party.</p>
<p>It's upsetting that the Hollywood liberals can backfire on the Democrats so badly. Middle America feels like the Dems are putting these celebrities on a pedestal rather than God, and they respond badly to that. They also don't like to be lectured and told what to do by the likes of Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand. Hollywood liberals are a deadly combination of idiotic and self righteous, and it's reflecting in the way people vote.</p>
<p>Hi Carolyn, that's why I was asking the question, and your answer makes sense. We should most definitely impale Michael Moore, Gavin Newsom, and all those rappers. </p>
<p>And another question: if I am understanding things correctly, the youth vote, aged 18-30, was overwhelmingly pro-Kerry although for the most part too apathetic or disorganized or busy to vote. When some of you talk about how the Republican party is now destined to become the leading party for years and years to come, how do you reconcile the fact of this rising portion of the electorate? Will the youth convert?</p>
<p>One of the little ironies I find here is the following: people are on this site because they are aspiring to send their kids to HYPSM and DBPCCC and AWS (my acronyms, figure them out) (not everyone, but many if not most). And yet, those are the colleges that produce the liberal, northeast establishment intellectuals and left coast kooks that the more rabid republicans on this site are now criticizing over their political views.</p>
<p>Why is it necessary to call contributors to this site "rabid?" I know they may disagree with you, but what the heck. Democracy, freedom of expression, and all that, right?</p>
<p>""He, being among the more conservative Democrats in the primary, actually got much more of a pass as a result."</p>
<p>He's the number one liberal in the Senate by his record--the most proven test."</p>
<p>You missed the point. The question is not whether he was or was not a liberal, but how he was PERCEIVED by Democrats and, specifically, Democrats in Iowa before the caucuses ('cause that's all that mattered). Dean was perceived as the most anti-war Democrat. Gephardt was perceived as the most pro-labor Democrat. Kucinich was perceived as the most pro-environment, and a very pro-peace Democrat. Sharpton was perceived as, well, Sharpton. </p>
<p>As a "liberal", Kerry didn't even make the top four - even in his own party, even in the state of Iowa. And 8 days before the Iowa Caucuses, the polls had the combination of Dean, Gephardt, Kucinich, and Sharpton with well over 50% of the vote. Both Kerry and Edwards were in single digits. </p>
<p>The "liberal" Kerry was a loser. He was nominated as "war hero Kerry".</p>
<p>It's not a matter of opinion. You can check the poll changes in the Des Moines Register for those dates, and you can see what Kerry said between Tuesday and Thursday (the same tired old stuff.) </p>
<p>The interesting thing that happened in those days was how the war-hero centrist Kerry carried Edwards on his coattails. Once the Iowa Democrats decided they could ditch the four liberals, those who didn't like the war-hero Kerry gravitated over to the other non-liberal Edwards.</p>
<p>Driver, I wasn't referring to you or anyone on this thread, but do look at the other message thread sites on the cafe. It is interesting. Absolutely, as to your general comment, that's why we're all here. Sorry I was entirely too vague.</p>
<p>Again, it is really interesting to see so many different theories about why Bush won. Some people feel that it was because he was effective and appealed to certain predominant feelings in the electorate, and others feel that it was just massive ineptitude on the part of the Democrats and that Bush was ripe for defeat.</p>
<p>Patient, I'm not convinced that the youth vote was overwhelmingly pro-Kerry. I think that was just another media (and Democratic party) assumption. And, as usual, the media (and Democratic party) went with the assumption rather than actually going out and doing research to find out what was really going on. Again, think back to the comment I made at the beginning of this discussion - us moderates and conservatives tend to be quieter than liberals but we still vote.</p>
<p>Well, the polls weren't exactly accurate but the polls had a very large margin, but I'm not speaking from personal knowledge of course.
And the source is the Harvard Institute of Politics which sounds like a liberal-biased organization. :)
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/college.poll/%5B/url%5D">http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/college.poll/</a></p>
<p>Patient, I don't see the irony. I'm a product of what you call the liberal northeast educational establishment and I hope my kids will take advantage of the same and make their own decisions. That's what makes for interesting dinner table discussions. And, there's a huge difference between discussing and criticizing.</p>
<p>Wow, check this out....</p>
<p>I nearly died laughing. The sad part is, it wasn't doctored---it's from a collection of footage this guy shot of political figures preparing for time slots on TV. (He had one of Dick Cheney, too, but Cheney just sat there and smiled so it wasn't too interesting.)</p>
<p>One tidbit about polls I found interesting. I'd never received a polling call until this year. The first question they asked was whether I or anyone in my family was a journalist. When I said yes, I was a business journalist, they said they couldn't include me. :)</p>