What happened? Election analysis

College Confidential Community
121

<p>Pirient, I'm not trying to crow, well, maybe just a little. I'm actually reflecting back my day in class and at dinner at a very liberal school with very liberal profs. I'm not even sure yet how I feel about a lot of this and what it means for the Country. Even the ultra liberals in class believe that this decisive of a victory gives him strength to further push his agenda and that he will. Bush said today that he will restructure the tax code. Read more tax breaks for business, continued breaks for the wealthy that will probably get deeper (inherirence tax, cap gains, etc.). The type of things that makes Moore fans crazy. His Iraq policies will stand. The bottom line is with more support than ever, why would he start compromising now? Not my wish, but my belief.</p>

122

<p>Or, maybe we could all just keep the healing tone that this thread has, for the most part, taken, and bring us back together again, where we all belong. We all love this country, our freedoms, our common heritage--let's please remember that.>></p>

<p>Well said, Patient. Yet, when I said the same thing on the parents board, I was met with some vehement comments about how people would NEVER accept the results of this election. I do think that we need to move forward and accept that our similarities are greater than our differences. But perhaps it's too soon for that at this point.</p>

123

<p>"there is no real conceptual or linguistic space carved out in the media for moderate church-goers and spiritual seekers. Not all Christians are far, far right."</p>

<p>kiddilit,I just don't understand this comment. Can you back this up other than your own experience. Could it be a consequence of where you live?</p>

124

<p>"So, Kerry's strategists came up with the notion that they would conceal his record behind a "war hero" facade and we ended up with a truly bizarre convention that told us NOTHING about the candidate's views. I was thinking how bizarre Kerry's approach has been. George Bush, who I considered to be a notably undistinguished candidate four years ago, at least ran on his record as Texas governor. Kerry appeared to consciously run away from his record."</p>

<p>Yes - and the party of moral values, character, and Christian ethics gave us Swift Boat ads. Keery could have answered them - but he chose not to, just as he chose not to let us know anything really about his plans, or even his ability to connect with real people. </p>

<p>What did he fear? A Mass. liberal who supported globalization, WTO (and the environmental destruction that goes with it?) Welfare "reform"? Stricter penalties for nonviolent drug offenders? Clinton's bombing of the wastewater treatment plants in Iraq and the death of 576,000 Iraqi children as a result of that, coupled with the sanctions against medical supplies? (Makes Bush look like Gandhi in comparison.)</p>

<p>He got pegged as Mass. liberal anyway - and got nothing back for it. (You're right in the comparison with GW of four years ago.) There just wasn't a lot of there, there. (And certainly his campaign leading up to Iowa lends credence to your idea that there never was.)</p>

<p>My cracked crystal ball says the country won't come back together any time soon. Not with the situation in Iraq getting worse every day. I wouldn't be surprised now to see an Israeli strike on Iran - it would be the perfect time. </p>

<p>But then, I'm often wrong about these things.</p>

125

<p>"there is this underlying assumption in the media that ALL religious people are somehow outside the norm of US society when it is clearly not true."</p>

<p>Can you please illustrate this or show some example because it sounds like opinion to me.</p>

126

<p>Carolyn, yes I think that a little more than half the country is on an adrenaline high, and the other half is devastated. We are still in a highly reactive mode. For my own and my family's sake (my children are very upset too), I am trying to understand this, learn from it, and also try to calm my own paranoid fears. As to the percentage I quoted, I don't think I'll be able to find the article anymore (recycled and I can't pull anything off the NYT site after a week or so), but I'm almost certain that is the percentage he cited. And I have certainly known Catholics who also considered themselves born again--there is a certain amount of Protestant-Catholic cross-fertilization on these concepts.</p>

<p>Bobby, thanks. I really don't think that Bush has the mandate he thinks he has, but only time will tell. Remember that his approval ratings were quite low, that a majority of people think that the situation in Iraq is very bad (well, duh), and think they are worse off than 4 years ago. It is highly unusual to unseat an incumbent after only one term, so again I think that what might have happened, to some extent, is that the Republicans are ebullient because they thought there was a good chance they would lose. I understand that Republican majorities in both houses gives them a stronger reason to celebrate, combined with what should have been an assured Presidential re-election. </p>

<p>Anyway, I'm going to try to hang out with my family and maybe get some sleep, didn't get much at all last night.....</p>

127

<p>the country will move forward if Bush finds ways to compromise and accommodate other points of view, rather than dominate.</p>

128

<br>


<br>

<p>There were two moments during the campaign that offended me to the core.</p>

<p>The first came when Bush's goons attacked Kerry's war record. As far as I'm concerned, Kerry had the guts to go to Vietnam and I find it truly offensive to attack him for it.</p>

<p>The second came when first Edwards, then Kerry, used Dick Cheney's daughter for political gain. People can talk "gay marriage" all they want, but I found that to be a truly despicable attack. Dick Cheney's daughter's sexual preferences are, frankly, none of John Kerry's d@mn business and it is certainly not appropriate for him to inject her into the debate for purely partisan gain. He actually tettered close to the same edge in a somewhat veiled reference to President Bush's daughters comments in the first debate. I just think it's a low blow.</p>

129

<p>Patient, I think if President Clinton ran this time, he would lose, not Bush. People would say he ignored Osama and failed to get him when the time was ripe (in Sudan and in Afghanistan). I think you are right: people voted for continuity during wartime. And people are more conservative now than they were 4 years ago. That's what I think.</p>

<p>My family and I are sad too..and trying to come to grips with this.</p>

130

<p>Interesteddad....doesn't your point about Dick Cheney's daughter's sexual preferences being none of Kerry's business translate into, other people's sexual preferences are none of Bush's or anyone else's d@mn business too? And don't they seem to think it is? (I am sure that they would try to ban more than just gay marriage if they thought they had a prayer of accomplishing that).....</p>

131

<p>Achat, I don't know if you are right about the country being more conservative (no opinion, not that I disagree). I wonder whether this is tied in at all with 9-11. But I think you're wrong about Clinton-Bush. But we'll never find out.....</p>

132

<br>


<br>

<p>I think that we will hold off until after the Iraqi elections. I do think that applying relentless pressure on the ruling mullahs in Iran is the most important step in the war on terrorism -- and something we really should have been doing much more aggressively since they took our hostages in 1979. It would probably be best for the region if we handle the missle strikes rather than Israel. Even better if we could convince our "allies" in France and Russia to stop supplying nuclear technology to terrorist states, but that's probably not too likely.</p>

<p>If we can avoid military action, it will be because of the military pressure sitting on Iran's borders and the psychological pressure that would result from successful elections in Iraq. </p>

<p>To a large degree, the daily skirmishes with "insurgents" in Iraq are daily skirmishes with the Iranian mullahs.</p>

<p>It would be great if we could use our relationship with the Iraqis to actually get some useful intelligence on Iran. Clearly, the lack of reliable intelligence in the entire region has been a major problem. </p>

<p>I think that is entirely possible that Osama Bin Laden has been holed up in Iran for quite some time.</p>

133

<p>I don't understand why anyone thinks that military strikes are the way to end terrorism. If I am understanding the terrorists correctly, anything we do along those lines only increases their ambition to strike us, more seriously, and wins them more and more recruits to their cause. I don't understand why we aren't pouring aid to the moderate Islamic factions to help them win popular support over the religious fanatic leaders. We do not even have the troop strength to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now you want to add strikes in Iran?</p>

<p>Ah.....it's the draft after all. Mark my words. How many of you advocating this have sons of draftable age? Those of us who do are absolutely terrified that our children will die in this generation's VietNam.</p>

134

<p>Look guys, Kerry was not fundamentally a bad campaigner. Yes, he had to great blunders: focusing on his war record in the democratic convention and by voting against the 87 billion dollars. However, the democrats were beaten for one simple reason, the country has experienced a reallignment that first came about in 1994 when the republicans first took the Congress. This country is moving in a more religious and socially conservative direction. Look, Bush won because devout Evangelical christians turned out to vote for him in much greater numbers than in 2000. Although 90 percent of republicans WOULD BENEFIT from a the governmental policies advocated by democrats (welfare, healthcare, etc), they are voting with their FAITH and with their VALUES. Unfortunatelly, the southern/midwestern states are becoming more conservative and the western and northern states are becoming more liberal. The democrats must move to the center or to the far left. If they follow a far left policy they must be governmentally left and appeal to blue collared workers who have left to the Republicans. If they go to the center, they must appeal to the old democrats who used to vote democrat in the 1960s.</p>

135

<br>


<br>

<p>Yes. Of course. That's certainly the way I view it. Other than his position against "gay marriage", but in favor of allowing "civil unions", I'm really not aware of any Bush policies or statements on the subject.</p>

136

<p>I'm just guessing that privately he would love to outlaw homosexuality if he could. The country isn't that backward, yet, so he hasn't taken that position.</p>

<p>It is true that more evangelical Christians turned out to vote, but I don't know that that supports the view that the country is more conservative now than it was, just that they were far better at getting out the vote this time. I would like to see facts to support your point of view. 20% of the people who were interviewed said that moral issues were very important or the most important factor, but far far more simply said the war on terror was what caused them to vote as they did.</p>

137

<br>


<br>

<p>That is precisely what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why the thought of pulling out is so frightening. The second you do that, Iraq becomes a radical fundamentalist Shiitte Muslim regime. The reason we didn't take Sadaam out when we should have a decade ago is because we didn't have the political stomach for investing the resources required to keep that from happening. </p>

<p>We are also pouring tremendous amounts of aid into countries like Pakistan, Egypt, etc.</p>

<p>The concensus of the experts I've read (the early hearings of the 9/11 Commision make wonderful background reading) is that we must pursue a two-pronged strategy:</p>

<p>a) relentless pressure on terrorists and enabling states. BTW, Iran is considered to be THE patron saint of terrorism.</p>

<p>b) long term investment in democratic government and economic enfranchisement. Kids with hope and a voice don't strap bombs to themselves.</p>

138

<br>


<br>

<p>Why would you guess that? I'm not aware that Bush proposed any such laws while he was Governor of Texas. I don't agree with many of his politcal views, but I hardly think the guy is politically stupid or bigotted. He is a New England preppie/Yalie, grandson of a Connecticut governor, son of a President of the United States!</p>

139

<p>I don't think our military presence in Iraq is doing anything but hurting that cause and frankly I think we have created so much more hatred for Americans by such things as the false pretences under which we invaded in the first places and such abuses as Abu Ghraib that whatever happens when we leave (IF we leave?) will only happen with more vengeance and on a bigger scale. Afghanistan's population is different and the perception of there being a good reason for our presence creates a different and more hopeful scenario there, but I still think the end result will not be long-term democracy because there will always be a taint associated with western military might being at its inception.</p>

140

<br>


<br>

<p>Both of those are false. Certainly, the South is MUCH more progressive than it was 50 years ago. As for the Northeast, Massachusetts has now elected two Republican governors.</p>

<p>I don't see the country getting "more conservative" at all. I think there has been a bit of a backlash about some of the more extreme aspects of "political correctness". But, there has also been a backlash against some of the more extreme aspects of the right-wing conservative agenda (see the election losses when Gingrich and his boys got a little too arrogant with their "mandate"). I think the country has spoken pretty loudly that it is most comfortable right in the middle, without extreme views from either side, especially on social issues.</p>