Oh, somehow I don't think so.

Post #183,349 by bepatient 11/7/04 11:13:48 AM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 11/8/04 11:16:43 AM Reply	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 by bepatient 11/8/04 11:27:31 AM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 11/8/04 11:37:20 AM Reply	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 by jake123 11/8/04 11:44:17 AM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 11/8/04 12:01:27 PM Reply	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 by jake123 11/8/04 12:04:40 PM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 11/8/04 12:21:06 PM Reply	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 by jake123 11/8/04 12:41:38 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 11/8/04 12:53:11 PM Reply	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 by jb4 11/8/04 1:31:10 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 11/8/04 1:36:48 PM Reply	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 by JayMehaffey 11/8/04 12:57:15 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 11/8/04 1:06:36 PM Reply	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]

Welcome to IWETHEY!