Post #183,260
11/6/04 6:33:37 PM
|
That's an impossible standard to reach
The Democratic Party is against gay marriage.
The candidates for President and Vice-President are against gay marriage.
Yet because the people who are for gay marriage are mostly Democratic, you're going to blast the Democrats for being stupid politically.
I've got news for you. As long as the Republicans demonstrate themselves to be far more hostile to gays than Democrats, the gays are going to generally go Democrat. And they care more about their issue than anything else, so they'll keep on raising the issue. But they no more represent the Democratic party than the fruitcakes who don't want Evolution taught represent the Republican party.
Now did you have any useful suggestions that might actually happen? I thought not.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,269
11/6/04 7:44:07 PM
|
Whatever.
If you want to continue to miss the point, then you can.
This is about perception. And as long as the democratic party continues to allow itself to be perceived this way, they are going to have problems.
If you want to sit here and tell me I'm fucked up for pointing my views of the problem to you...so be it.
The gay issue is only one of the points. I personally support equal legal rights.
Moore and his ilk spewing hate 24/7 for 12 months was another.
The associations I mentioned before are another.
The lack of a good candidate is another. Whoever said Lieberman was a good candidate was on crack. Whoever thinks Hillary in 08 is on crack too.
But, since you seem to be associating this with my actual view...I'll quit now. It ain't worth it to me. I don't particularly give a shit...because in addition to all these problems...it doesn't appear they have any candidates to run out either.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,321
11/7/04 4:33:49 AM
|
No, YOU missed the point
This is about perception. And as long as the democratic party continues to allow itself to be perceived this way, they are going to have problems.
How is the Democratic party to reverse that? Concrete suggestions only, please.
Go around telling America that it is not allowed to misjudge the Democratic party? That's going to work really well. Not.
Gay marriage was not the party platform. Gay marriage was not the candidate's platform. Both party and platform said that very clearly. Yet gay marriage is what was perceived.
In case you didn't notice, the Democrats are not in complete control of how they are perceived. In particular the Republicans are doing their best to make sure that the Democrats will be perceived in a particular way. Furthermore there are fringe elements who associate themselves with the Democratic party that will not behave like everyone else in the party wants. Which gives Rove et al enough ammunition to start spinning no matter what the party tries to do.
Now suppose that you were in John Kerry's position. What would you do differently to make sure that your message was heard? The key word is differently. If you suggest doing things that he already did - for instance coming out for civil unions, not gay marriage - then I'm going to mock you. With cause.
Regards,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,342
11/7/04 10:27:10 AM
|
They can try what Tony Blair did.
Voila! The New Democratic Party. Oh wait, it already exists and is called the [link|http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=86|Democratic Leadership Council]. They ask [link|http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253002|What Happened?]: The third "trust gap" that hurt Democrats was another hardy perennial: values and culture. And here the evidence of a Democratic handicap is overwhelming. As every exit poll has shown, "moral values" was the number one concern of voters on November 2 -- more than terrorism, Iraq, the economy, health care, education, or anything else. And among voters citing "moral values" as their top concern, Democrats got clobbered.
Overcoming the cultural trust gap is not just a matter of carefully calibrating positions on specific issues like guns, abortion, or this year's big wedge issue, gay marriage. Indeed, John Kerry did not repeat Al Gore's mistake of leading with his chin on such issues. The problem is that many millions of voters simply do not believe that Democrats take their cultural fears and resentments seriously, and that Republicans do.
As in so many recent elections, some Democrats believed they could trump the cultural concerns of middle-class families through economic appeals, asking voters to look to their pocket-books rather than their hearts when entering the polling place. If there was ever an election where this should have worked, it was this one, and it didn't.
[...] There's only so much Kerry could do to change perceptions about him. He wasn't the best candidate the Democrats could run this year. If they wanted a Senate candidate, [link|http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/About/about.htm|Dick Durbin] from Illinois might have been a better choice (though of course he wasn't running). From the House, I don't know. Nobody jumps out at me, maybe [link|http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/bio.html|George Miller] from California. But he wasn't running either. A governor? Maybe [link|http://www.governor.state.ia.us/bios/vilsack_bio.html|Tom Vilsack] from Iowa. Maybe a recent democratic governor. The Democrats needed someone who could point to their record on these morals/values issues if they wanted to combat Republican pictures of them. Kerry didn't do that well at all. Howard Dean was a strong candidate in many ways, but much of the party establishment feared him. He was stronger than Kerry in some respects - he had a progressive record but also had a record of accomplishment in health care, budgets, etc. that Kerry didn't have. He was weaker in others - he had almost no experience with contested elections. But he could actually articulate what he believed. As Seth Myers said in an SNL [link|http://www.museworld.com/archives/001529.html|sketch] where he played Kerry in the first debate: My opponent would like you to believe that I\ufffdve changed my position on the war. The fact is I have one position, and one position only. Was Saddam a threat? Yes. I\ufffdve said so since day one. What his regime a danger to the security of the U.S.? Of course not. Did he deserve to be removed? You bet. Was it the right action to remove him from power? No way. Was he in possession of weapons of mass destruction? Absolutely. Did he possess these weapons? No, he did not. And that has always been my position. and he [link|http://stopstop.blogspot.com/2004/10/snl-review.html|continues]: The fact is that I have consistently supported the war in front of pro-war audiences and condemned the war while speaking to groups that oppose it. That is not flip flopping, that is pandering and Americans deserve a president that knows the difference. Like it or not, Kerry made it easy to be painted that way. In short, you and BP both make good points. IMO, Kerry was going to have a very difficult time no matter what the circumstances were because he was a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts. He could have done better, though, in running his campaign and articulating his positions. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #183,349
11/7/04 11:13:48 AM
|
Oh, somehow I don't think so.
One Suggestion
Don't take the "fringe element" (or whatever you call it) and sit it next to a former President (well respected at that) at the Convention. They were certainly in control of that. What utter fucking brilliance it was to put him there. NOT.
Gay marriage was but one part of the problem. Its not my fault you aren't reading my posts.
But since you want to focus there...lets go back to the gay issue...and I believed then as now that it would bite them in the ass...SUGGESTION: don't stretch in public debate to call out Cheney's daughter as a lesbian. Both the VEEP candidate and the real candidate FAILED MISERABLY when presented those questions in the debates. They used that time to take (what were widely perceived as) shots at the candidate instead of ANSWERING THE QUESTION AND STATING THEIR POSITION CLEARLY. Whether >you< think so or not...the fact that it became an issue for 2 weeks after should tell you EVERYONE ELSE did.
Go ahead and mock me. I don't think you quite realize just how little I give a shit. It will settle right in another one of the problems that the party has. Goes something like this..."Noone could ever POSSIBLY think these things...because I don't...and that makes >them< WRONG. I think I'll make a "documentary" about it and/or taunt you incessantly for being a middle american, too stupid to vote, hick-assed country bumpkin."
So.
Shall we?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,465
11/8/04 11:16:43 AM
|
Yes, let's go back to the gay issue
You seem to be under a delusion that America understood what they heard in the debates. Did you miss [link|http://www.mtsusurveygroup.org/mtpoll/f2004/MTSUPoll_Election_Report.htm|http://www.mtsusurve...ection_Report.htm] or else just miss its importance? Here is a critical section: But Tennesseans not all that issue savvy
Despite the impression the above findings might give, a close look at five domestic agenda items suggests that Tennesseans as a group hardly qualify as well-informed, ideologically consistent policy wonks. For example, only about half of Tennessee adults can accurately name Kerry as the candidate who supports rescinding the recent federal income tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 a year. About a quarter (23%) incorrectly attributed the proposal to Bush, and 27% admit they don\ufffdt know which candidate supports the measure. Similarly, only about half (50%) rightly name Bush as the candidate who favors giving parents tax-funded vouchers to help pay private or religious school tuition. Thirteen percent attribute the plan to Kerry, who actually opposes it. Over a third (37%) admit they don\ufffdt know.
Knowledge levels are even lower on the other three issues. Well under half (42%) are aware that Bush wants to let younger workers put some of their Social Security withholdings into their own personal retirement accounts. Nineteen percent incorrectly think Kerry supports the measure, and 40% say they don\ufffdt know one way or the other. Just over a quarter (28%) rightly name Bush as the candidate who supports giving needy people tax breaks that would help buy health insurance from private companies. Thirty percent inaccurately name Kerry as the measure\ufffds proponent, and 41% admit not knowing. Finally, just 39% know that Kerry advocates requiring plants and factories to add new pollution control equipment when they make upgrades. Fifteen percent wrongly attribute the policy to Bush, and 45% don\ufffdt know. Both candidates spent a lot of energy differentiating themselves on that issue. Yet average voters remain blissfully unaware of what their real positions are. For the record, I watched the debate and thought that Kerry and Edwards stated their position clearly. Both said that they thought that marriage was between a man and a woman. However marriage is a state issue, and it isn't the business of the federal government to regulate it. Besides no state is bound to accept any other state's definition of marriage. If you want to say that they should have had a simpler position I'll agree. But what they had was clearly stated. Furthermore the fact that they couldn't even get across the fact that Kerry was for rolling back tax cuts on rich folks while Bush was against it suggests that America simply wasn't paying attention. If something repeated that often didn't get through, the answers to one question each in the debates didn't have a hope in hell of making it. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,469
11/8/04 11:27:31 AM
|
Priceless.
He could have stated his position differently. Without taking the perceived shot at the candidate. Edwards could have done this also. It would have had a better chance of being heard and remembered. Instead, people remembered him taking a shot at Cheney.
And you are just now figuring that people in Tennessee are uninformed? Do you have the same information for South Central LA voters or is this just another attempt to say anyone in a red state is an idiot?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,470
11/8/04 11:37:20 AM
|
Suggestion
Several points. - I see no reason to believe that people in TN are more or less informed than anywhere else. That just happens to be the only poll that I have on how well informed the general electorate was on the candidates positions. Even Karl Rove could be proud of how you spun that one into a perceived insult where none was meant.
- People didn't generally just "remember" the debate that way. At least not unassisted. Look back to what I said a couple of posts ago about the Republicans trying to spin how the Democrats are perceived. (And vice versa of course. But Karl Rove is the master.)
- It is easy to say that the position could have been stated differently. It is far harder to come up with said statement. Either put up or shut up. How would you have said it, since you think it is so easy to say?
Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,471
11/8/04 11:44:17 AM
|
How I would've put it
Marriage is a state's rights issue; I'm not going to try to influence them as it would be improper of me to do so. FWIW, I'm married to a woman.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #183,473
11/8/04 12:01:27 PM
|
And what is a "state's rights issue"?
You're assuming a far better understanding of the US constitution than most Americans have.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,475
11/8/04 12:04:40 PM
|
An issue that is under the purview of the state government
as opposed to the federal government.
By framing it as a states' right issue, you frame it in a way that is definitely comprehensible to the south-eastern vote. "States' Rights" is a buzzword and people do know what it means in general, even if they can't discuss the particulars very well.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #183,477
11/8/04 12:21:06 PM
|
A complication for you
Most people understand the word "married" to mean one thing. The idea that MA says that you're married by OH doesn't is very confusing.
And yes, I'm fully aware that there are multiple definitions already. For instance the Catholic Church says that I'm not married while every US state says that I am. For another example, I know a gay couple who got married in Greece. Greece recognizes it but no US state (except possibly MA) recognizes that marriage.
But how many people in the general public are going to think that it makes sense unless it is explained carefully? Or even if it is explained carefully (as already noted, they're not paying much attention so careful explanations are generally a waste of breath).
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,479
11/8/04 12:41:38 PM
|
Who said it has to make sense?
You're talking electoral politics in the US here. Looking for sense is a fool's errand.
In short, you don't (and more specifically, Kerry didn't) have to fully explain it. What he needed to say was:
"Marriage is handled by the states, and it won't be my place as President of this country to tell them how they should handle it."
... and he should have gone on to say "by the way... take a look at your communities. Are they better off or worse off than they were four years ago? How are your schools holding up? Are they shortening the school year because they can't afford to keep them open?"
The Kerry campaign (and Democrats in general) should be looking at and issues that work in red states. The current concentration by both parties on swing states to the exclusion of non-swing states is going to do bad things to the national fabric.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #183,482
11/8/04 12:53:11 PM
|
I already told you.
I would NOT have mentioned anything about any candidates children. As for the direct statement of issue, jake pretty much has it.
>>I don't believe it is the federal governments role to decide issues of marriage that have been and should continue to be decided by the states themselves.<<
Tie that in to the red state mantra of smaller government..you don't need Washington telling you how to live..etc..etc...would play VERY WELL in red states.
No bending over backwards to try and convince everyone that people are people and that ..by the way... VP Cheney loves his daughter who just happens to be a lesbian.
Sheesh.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,493
11/8/04 1:31:10 PM
|
Not anyone. Just (at least) 50% of 'em...
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #183,495
11/8/04 1:36:48 PM
|
Re: Not anyone. Just (at least) 50% of 'em...
You're just being difficult, now aren't you? ;-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,484
11/8/04 12:57:15 PM
|
Another good example
[link|http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1022-01.htm|Common Dreams] Nonetheless, 56 percent of Bush supporters said they believed that most experts currently believe that Iraq had actual WMD, and 57 percent said they thought that the Duelfer Report had itself concluded that Iraq either had WMD (19 percent) or a major WMD program (38 percent).
Only 26 percent of Kerry supporters, by contrast, said they believed that pre-war Iraq had either actual WMD or a WMD program, and only 18 percent said they believed that \ufffdmost experts\ufffd agreed.
Similar results were found with respect to Hussein\ufffds alleged support for al Qaeda, a theory that has been most persistently asserted by Vice president Dick Cheney, but that was thoroughly debunked by the final report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission earlier this summer.
Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters said they believed that Iraq was providing \ufffdsubstantial\ufffd support to Al Qaeda, with 20 percent asserting that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believed that the clear evidence of such support has actually been found, and 60 percent believe that \ufffdmost experts\ufffd have reached the same conclusion.
By contrast, only 30 percent of Kerry supporters said they believe that such a link existed and that most experts agree.
But large majorities of both Bush and Kerry supporters agree that the administration is saying that Iraq had WMD and was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. In regard to WMD, those majorities have actually grown since last summer, according to PIPA.
On WMD, 82 percent of Bush supporters and 84 percent of Kerry supporters believed that the administration is saying that Iraq either had WMD or major WMD programs. On ties with al Qaeda, 75 percent of Bush supporters and 74 percent of Kerry supporters believe that the administration is saying that Iraq provided substantial support to the terrorist group.
Remarkably, asked whether the U.S. should have gone to war with Iraq if U.S. intelligence had concluded that Baghdad did not have a WMD program and was not providing support to al Qaeda, 58 percent of Bush supporters said no, and 61 percent said they assumed that Bush would also not have gone to war under those circumstances. In particular, majorities or Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that he supports multilateral approaches to various international issues, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) (69 percent), the land mine treaty (72 percent), and the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming (51 percent).
In August, two thirds of Bush supporters also said they believed that Bush supported the International Criminal Court (ICC), although in the latest poll, that figure dropped to a 53 percent majority, even though Bush explicitly denounced the ICC in the most widely watched nationally televised debate of the campaign in late September.
In all of these cases, majorities of Bush supporters said they favored the positions that they imputed, incorrectly, to Bush.
Large majorities of Kerry supporters, on the other hand, showed they knew both their candidate\ufffds and Bush\ufffds positions on the same issues. All the evidence says rather directly that Kerry supporters where better informed then Bush supporters. More over, it appears that a significant percentage of Bush supporters do so only because they are missinformed. What this doesn't answer is the question of how much of this problem is self deception by Bush supporters, how much is failure of Kerry to be specific, how much is deceptive statements by the White House and how much is failure to inform on the part of the Press. Jay
|
Post #183,486
11/8/04 1:06:36 PM
|
DING DING DING DING
how much is failure to inform on the part of the Press. And how much is that particular story part of the problem? Ask the same questions to each audience and show all results. Everywhere. South Central, Bronx, West Philly...everywhere. I happened to agree 100% with Mr Stewart when he fired at the crossfire guys. He is >right<. They fail to do what they say they intend to do...which is inform. All of the 24 hour news networks and certainly the 3 majors fail at this. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,452
11/8/04 9:35:41 AM
|
Here's a suggestion, Ben
Neutralize Karl Rove.
Find his long lost lesbian daughter. Find those pedophile pictures he has in his basement. Scrounge up the credit card charges for escort services he used when on the road campaigning for his "moral" puppetcandidate. French sex clubs...the public just loves French sex clubs (just ask Jack Ryan).
The beauty of it is, it doesn't even have to be accurate (this election; indeed, this thread has shown that). Just manufacture some good "evidence" (Hollywood should be good for that), make sure it gets high publicity, repeat every 2-3 months with something new (must reinforce the meme periodically, or the Eloi will forget).
There is a certain Karmic balance of the "his own medicine" approach....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #183,586
11/8/04 5:43:17 PM
|
reminds me of LBJ
supposedly true story [link|http://www.bestoftheblogs.com/2003_10_24_bestof.html|http://www.bestofthe...10_24_bestof.html] I say, let the boys continue to deny it, because part of the denial is retelling the lie. Reminds me of a reportedly true story about LBJ. In one of his heated campaigns for the senate he called in his press aide to issue a release saying that "my wooorthy opponent has carnal knowledge of animals." The press aide immediately says, "Senator, you can't call your opponent a pig-fucker."
"Aaaaah," Lyndon says, "I just want to hear him stand up and deny it." posted by Josh Hammond 8:34 AM Comment (0) nothing new here. regards, daemon that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
|
Post #183,487
11/8/04 1:11:00 PM
|
No he didn't
Its all about PR. That's what he's saying.
We need a Hollywood image doctor to win I guess.
Which to me seems like a sign of real trouble in the US. But perhaps this has always been true.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #183,492
11/8/04 1:27:18 PM
|
Tippecanoe and Tyler, too.
[link|http://www.thehistorynet.com/ah/bltorrectofmusic/|Here]: What has caused the great commotion, motion, motion,
Our country through?
It's the ball a rolling on, on.
For Tippecanoe and Tyler, too. Tippecanoe and Tyler, too.
And with them we'll beat little Van, Van, Van.
Van is a used up man.
And with them we'll beat little Van.
[...]
While the 1840 Whig campaign did not have a long-range effect on public policy, the songs left an echo. The cynicism bred from a campaign based upon emotion and propaganda rears its head every four years as the major political parties unleash presidential campaigns in which style trumps substance and slogans override issues. The more things change... Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #183,505
11/8/04 1:55:01 PM
11/8/04 1:55:51 PM
|
right - the more things change..
Tyler became President when W.H. Harrison died only a month into office, in 1841.
The Whigs eventually ejected Tyler from the party because he stood firm for states' rights, on Constitutional grounds. The conservative Whigs dissolved into irrelevance and were replaced by fire-eating radicals - the Republicans. When the Civil War was all but inevitable, Tyler lead a hopeless compromise movement. This was the last official gasp for the former Whigs.
If only the Whigs had survived...
-drl
Edited by deSitter
Nov. 8, 2004, 01:55:51 PM EST
|
