How You Could Have Had My Vote
POSTED BY: Jasonzzz
UPDATED: Thursday, November 18, 2004 03:26
VIEWED: 5131
PAGE 4 of 5
Geezer... What we do here IS debate. It's a wild and wooly discussion group as far as I can tell. Besides, could you REALLY be finagled, wheedled, or smooth-talked into voting for Kerry... or anyone else, for that matter? I don't think your intelligence would allow it, and I'm not even gonna try. I'll leave that to the professional politicians of the Democratic Party.
I'm not even sure that insulting people isn't a way to win votes. I occasionally watch FOX, listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest, and they spew (literally) hatred and insults. That didn't stop people from voting for Bush, did it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stoking hate IS a way to win votes - find, or create, an enemy, and proclaim your side THE righteous side. Then watch 'em flock.
(Old thread - Demonization of the Enemy)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Been there - read that. Congress wrote exactly what they meant clearly:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
All laws written are a product of consensus - so what we have in the end is the average sentiment of the framers. Any opinions, even expressed by the framers themselves, aren't binding as they represent their personal view and not the will of Congress as a whole.
Freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion (meaning all things religious and every reference to religion).
If my praying disturbs you, I'll try to pray quietly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As long as my preaching about the evils of religious dope doesn't bother you. Just kidding. Mostly. 
I'm personally non-committal about religion and whatever you do with your god(s) is OK with me. I just don't want it in my goverment.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That was just my first pass of a reply from a busy day.
I find the letter disingenuous. What I'm hearing is, paraphrasing... "I wouldn't have voted for Bush but you MADE me do it". "I heard people like me being mocked for believing in Jesus." "Your spokespeople have been calling people like me 'snake-handling evangelicals,'" "Your attitudes, language, and behavior toward people like me: reasonable, thinking Christians..."
I don't hear her complaining about O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, The Federalist, Lott, and other hate-spewing right-wingers. The problem isn't bile and venom- it's perfectly fine when it's directed at people not like her- it's that she IDENTIFIES with snake-handling evangelicals. She identified with Bush-voters BEFORE she even voted: "I felt assaulted when Bush voters were mocked" ("I " = Bush voters. Can I make this any more plain?)
What I'm hearing is rationalization. She wants to think that she's a reasonable person, but when push came to shove she put her religion and hurt feelings ahead of reason and now she wants to unload the responsibility onto Democrats. I think she just need to gain maturity and take responsibility for her actions.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue,
Preach all you like about whatever you like ("free expression thereof")and I'll know that things are working as they should. I don't want the goverment in the religion business any more now then in my agnostic days.
The "seperation of church and state" argument just rubs me the wrong way and shouldn't frame the debate (as it's not written in the law). For example:
If someone were to say that "In God we trust" on coins violates the seperation of church and state, I'd write them off as making a legally invalid argument. (If in a bad mood a might call them a brainwashed Marxist or somesuch.)
On the other hand, If someone were to say that "In God we trust" on coins is a defacto establishment of religion by Congress, I'd accept the validity of their argument (not sure if I'd agree or disagree).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know Bill, you are the very first (and, I mean the very first) person to bring up the point that the Constitution is a compromise. Hardly anyone ever thinks of that. My hat's off to you! Not being a constitutional expert myself, it would be interesting to know why the phrase "separation of Church and State" never made it in, since some of the Founding Fathers felt passionately about this point. I wonder what the countervailing argument was, if any.
But just because an interpretation isn't in the constitution per se doesn't mean it's an invalid point. When laws and regulations need to be intepreted it's the norm to go into related documents to deduce the reasoning or intent of the writer(s), otherwise you run the risk of creating a new law. We do this all the time where I work. To belabor a point, even if - or perhaps especially if- one wishes to strictly intepret the Constitution it would be necessary to look at ALL the writings on a particular issue to understand the thrust of the Founding Fathers. (Thrust implies a directionality- where would the Founding Fathers tend, if faced with this situations?)
IMHO I don't think strict interpretation is possible since new situations inevitably arise. But I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM, Rue, and PJ.
If the Democrats had picked up less than one million votes in swing states in either if the last two elections, we'd have a Democrat in the White House or ready to move in. Why didn't this happen?
Now grant me please, for the sake of argument, that everyone in the country is not either an evil, warmongering, bigoted, moneygrubbing Republican, or a peaceloving, inclusive, socially-conscious Democrat. There are a number of folk out there who wander around somewhere between these extremes.
If 51% of the total population were the good Dems, you'd have won. If 51% are the bad Republicans, you'll always lose. So the only scenario worth considering is the one in which both good Dems and bad GOPers are in a minority, and the Wanderers in the middle will swing the election.
*************************************************
So how does one go about attracting the Wanderers and their votes? (This is the important question. If you have dissenting opinions, please apply them by providing alternate answers to this question. Remember, this is about getting the votes in the middle only, not preaching to the choir.
*************************************************
In my humble opinion the evil GOP did this more successfully by being (or appearing to be) more inclusive, i.e.
"Hi. We're the GOP. How do you feel about this list of items? Let us know if anything is really important to you. Lets see. Taxes. Foreign policy. Abortion. What? Oh, you're pro-life? That's fine. So are we. No, we don't care how you feel about taxes, or foreign policy, come on in. We have a seat for you right here."
The good Dems, on the other hand, want you to buy the whole package, like this.
"Hi. We're the Democrats. Please check the boxes on this issues questionnare. Done? Thanks. Let's see. Pro-choice. Tax the rich. Good on gender issues. Health-care. Good so far. Iraq war. What? You support the Iraq war? How can you support the Iraq war? Don't you know Bush lied about WMD? Get away from me, you stupid neo-con. Go sit with your evil buddies!"
Exaggerated? Sure. But you get the idea. This is how I saw the fight for the votes in the middle play out in the last two elections, especially the most recent one.
Does anyone have an alternate scenario, remembering that this is about the undecided Wanderers only, not the party faithful?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Now grant me please, for the sake of argument, that everyone in the country is not either an evil, warmongering, bigoted, moneygrubbing Republican, or a peaceloving, inclusive, socially-conscious Democrat. There are a number of folk out there who wander around somewhere between these extremes.
HAHAHAHA!!!!
Just FYI I'm not a party faithful. I actually didn't vote for Clinton last round and it had nothing to do with Monica.
This is a complicated issue and I don't have a ready answer. I'm not sure this was a victory for Republicans as much as it was a victory for the religious right. I think what we saw was an asymmetric war (contest)- the left was focusing on Iraq, while the right was focusing on religion. Some people have said that this is the end of the Democratic Party as we know it, but conversely I would say the same thing for the Republican Party. Many of the old Republican values- fiscal conservatism, lack of government interference in private lives, and so forth- were hardly given lip service duinrg the Republican convention.
If you will grant me for the sake of argument that the REAL dividing line is between the fundamentalist religious movement in the United States and "other" (not between Democrats and Republicans or between pro- and anti-war) then I would look at what made that movement so successful.
I read a study once that looked at what made a successful movement. They looked at various movements: civil rights, environmental, women's movement, the then-unsuccessful animal rights movement, and so forth. One of the conistent characteristics of a successful movement is the presence of radical AND moderate elements. The radical elements "legitimize" the more conciliatory wing. If you look at far-right conservatives, they obviously fill that "radical" function, while the Republican Party (until this last election) filled the "conciliatory" function.
For the past several Democratic presidencies, up until this election cycle when Dr. Dean uncorked popular anger, there was no corresponding radical left of center. I think what happened was that Bush supporters were basically made to feel uncomfortable about making the choice they would have made anyway, being unused the ANY criticism from the left.
In other words, I'm not sure it is wrong for the left to engage in attack politics. It may have cost this election, but it may be useful in forming a left-of-center identity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, it does seem that a combination of extremists and moderates works to create a functional movement.
Just to throw some gas on the fire, here's two maps of red states v blue states, and slave states and territories v free.
http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_state
s_vs_.html
But now I gotta run.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME