Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on November 04, 2004, 12:45:06 PM
-
You go Girl! :rofl
By Ann Coulter
November 4, 2004
I guess John Kerry went into the primary without a plan to win the election.
The Democrats threw everything they had at this election. They ran a phony Vietnam War hero and a phony Southerner. They had middle-aged women executives at MTV hawking "Rock the Vote" to entice the most uninformed young people to vote for Kerry. They had Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews and New York Times darling Eminem. They had documentaries, books, the universities, Hollywood (and the French!) on their side.
They had liberal thugs ransacking Bush-Cheney headquarters, stealing Bush-Cheney signs and slashing the tires of Bush-Cheney get-out-the-vote vans on Election Day. In Colorado, they traded voter registrations for crack cocaine. In Ohio, they registered Mary Poppins and Dick Tracy. In South Carolina, Emily's List called Republican households and gave them incorrect information about the location of polling places.
The media campaigned heavily for Kerry with endless Abu Ghraib coverage, phony National Guard documents and, days before the election, false news reports that hundreds of tons of munitions had been looted in Iraq.
The Democrats' cheating never stopped. The big story of this election is the fraudulent exit polls on Election Day. Strange as it seems to me, it is well acknowledged that people are more likely to come out and vote for a winner. Early exit polls showing Kerry the clear winner could be expected to depress the vote for Bush.
Stunningly inaccurate exit polls released around noon on Election Day convinced news anchors, talking heads and even the campaigns that Kerry would win walking away. But at 9 p.m., when the first actual results began to come in, the election flipped to Bush. It was the first Kerry flip-flop that actually served the national interest.
The exit polls were absurd: They showed Kerry winning Pennsylvania by 20 points and Bush tied with Kerry in Mississippi. Only monkey business can explain the wildly pro-Kerry exit polls – admittedly hard to believe with a party that has behaved so honorably throughout this campaign. Michael Barone speculates that the sites of exit polling were leaked to the Democrats, and Democrats sent large numbers of voters to those polls to take exit polls and throw the results.
But for all their chicanery, vote-stealing, Hollywood starlets, fake polls and faux patriotism, the Democrats were wiped out on Election Day.
Bush won the largest popular vote in history with a 3.5 million margin. Indeed, simply by getting a majority of the country to vote for him – the left's most hated politician since Richard Nixon – Bush did something "rock star" Bill Clinton never did. Bush maintained or increased his vote in every state but Vermont. Republicans picked up seats in the House and Senate, and continue to dominate state governorships. Also making history of a sort, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle lost his election, marking the first time in half a century a Senate leader has been defeated.
To Michael Moore, George Soros, Terry McAuliffe, Dan Rather, Al Franken and the whole gang at Air America Radio – you were great, guys! Thanks for the help! We couldn't have done it without you!
Of course, we could have done it a lot earlier on election night but for "Boy Genius" Karl Rove. It's absurd that the election was as close as it was. The nation is at war, Bush is a magnificent wartime leader, and the night before the election we didn't know if a liberal tax-and-spend, Vietnam War-protesting senator from Massachusetts would beat him.
If Rove is "the architect" – as Bush called him in his acceptance speech – then he is the architect of high TV ratings, not a Republican victory. By keeping the race so tight, Rove ensured that a race that should have been a runaway Bush victory would not be over until the wee hours of the morning.
As we now know, the most important issue to voters was not terrorism, but moral values. Marriage amendments won by lopsided majorities in all 11 states where they were on the ballot. Even in Oregon, the state targeted by gay marriage advocates as their best shot of defeating a marriage amendment, the amendment passed by 57 percent – a figure noticeable for being larger than the percentage of votes cast for Bush in Oregon. In the great state of Mississippi, the marriage amendment passed with 88 percent of the vote.
Seventy percent to 80 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage and partial-birth abortion. Far from appealing exclusively to a narrow Republican base, opposition to gay marriage is strongest among the Democratic base: blacks, Hispanics, blue-collar workers and the elderly. There were marriage amendments on the ballot in Michigan and Ohio. Bush won Ohio narrowly and lost Michigan by only 2 points. How different might that have been if Bush hadn't run from the issue.
But Rove concluded Bush should stay mum on gay marriage and partial-birth abortion – contravening the politicians' rule of thumb: Talk about your positions that are wildly popular with voters. "Boy Genius" Rove decided Bush shouldn't even run radio ads on gay marriage, and at the last minute, Bush started claiming he was in favor of civil unions, just like John Kerry.
Amazingly, it was the Democrats – the ones who support gay marriage – who used the gay issue for political advantage, most famously when Kerry gay-baited Mary Cheney during the third debate.
The one toss-up Senate seat lost by the Republicans was Pete Coors in Colorado, where the Democrats did not hesitate to run commercials of a bacchanalian gay festival in Canada sponsored by Coors Brewing Co. The most narrow Republican win in a toss-up Senate race was in Alaska, where the Republican candidate was another "progressive" on the social issues.
When contemplating a former New York mayor as their next presidential candidate, Republicans should remember: This election should have been over sometime in August, not 1 a.m. election night.
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15805
-
I really can't understand how somebody can condemn Michael Moore on one hand and praise Ann Coulter on the other.
They are opposite sides of the same coin.
Lies and hate are lies and hate regardless of who says them or who they are said about.
-
Yes, but she goose steps better.
-SW
-
Plus, she dodges pies instead of gobbling them down like sweetarts.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Plus, she dodges pies instead of gobbling them down like sweetarts.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I really can't understand how somebody can condemn Michael Moore on one hand and praise Ann Coulter on the other.
They are opposite sides of the same coin.
Lies and hate are lies and hate regardless of who says them or who they are said about.
Awww...c'mon. put their pic side by side, then tell me which one you'd boink.
Seriously, though, she just tells it like it is, whereas Moore tells it like he wishes it was. He's filled with hate, she with righteous indignation.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Awww...c'mon. put their pic side by side, then tell me which one you'd boink.
Ewwww.
1) I'm not gay.
1a) If I were I'm guessing Michael Moore would still be repulsive.
2) Ann Coulter is not at all attractive to me, even discounting her desire to have me shot.
-
karnak... you really can't see the difference between coulter and moore?
coulter doesn't drive voters away... she is ded right on the following...
"To Michael Moore, George Soros, Terry McAuliffe, Dan Rather, Al Franken and the whole gang at Air America Radio – you were great, guys! Thanks for the help! We couldn't have done it without you! "
you can't pretend that these people are helping your party and wink and nod at their behaviour. People really do see who is backing them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
karnak... you really can't see the difference between coulter and moore?
coulter doesn't drive voters away... she is ded right on the following...
"To Michael Moore, George Soros, Terry McAuliffe, Dan Rather, Al Franken and the whole gang at Air America Radio – you were great, guys! Thanks for the help! We couldn't have done it without you! "
you can't pretend that these people are helping your party and wink and nod at their behaviour. People really do see who is backing them.
lazs
That's like claiming Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage drive people voters away.
Both sides extremists do so to some moderates and lots of Conservatives/Liberals.
I could no more concieve of voting for a party that thinks the likes of Coulter is reasonable than you could of a party that thinks the likes of Moore is reasonable. She drove me away and he drove you away equally.
I think you're letting your bias get in the way of honestly looking at what she says and how she says it.
There are certainly reasons why the Dems lost this election, but those you listed had very little to do with it. A much bigger factor, I think, was the reaction of Evangelical Christians to the gay marriage issue that really motivated them to get out and vote. Three million more of them voted in this election than in the last and they voted overwhelming for Bush.
There are some interesting exit polls showing the tremendous divergence in the concerns of Kerry voters and Bush voters. The radical spigots of vileness on both sides have more effect in motivating their respective extremes than in influencing anybody on the other side, though I grant you that Michael Moore may have managed to cross that line to a limited degree.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
way of honestly looking at what she says and how she says it.
There are certainly reasons why the Dems lost this election, but those you listed had very little to do with it. A much bigger factor, I think, was the reaction of Evangelical Christians to the gay marriage issue that really motivated them to get out and vote. Three million more of them voted in this election than in the last and they voted overwhelming for Bush.
Reading is FUNdumbental!
Coulter said:"As we now know, the most important issue to voters was not terrorism, but moral values. Marriage amendments won by lopsided majorities in all 11 states where they were on the ballot. Even in Oregon, the state targeted by gay marriage advocates as their best shot of defeating a marriage amendment, the amendment passed by 57 percent – a figure noticeable for being larger than the percentage of votes cast for Bush in Oregon. In the great state of Mississippi, the marriage amendment passed with 88 percent of the vote."
-
Ripsnort,
That was only true by a small margin. That is what I was trying to point out. There was a marked devide on the issues that were important to the respective voters, and the totals were pretty narrow so you cannot accurately say that the most important issue to voters was moral issues, not terrorism (which by the way was the number two concern of Bush voters and way down the list for Kerry voters) without qualifying the statement with something like "a narrow majority". Without that qualification the statement is misleading, which is exactly the kind of rhetoric that people like Coulter and Moore specialize in.
You can take any one of these people from either side and find examples of outright lies, intentional distortions, critical omissions and blunt truths. But they always present issues as though they are bluntly simple and binary with obvious solutions.
An example of how divisive Coulter is would be her calling all Liberals traitors and suggesting they should be shot. That is at the very least as hostile as anything Moore has said.
I condemn both of them, and all such rhetoric spewing extremists.
-
karnak... you miss the point... no offence but...
We know we can't have your vote. It is not worth catering to. The far lefties hurt the democrats far more than the right wingers hurt the republicans.
moore gave Florida to Bush.
lazs
-
So, now you concede that she didn't miss the point... only exagerated it?
She hit the nail right on the head with this:Seventy percent to 80 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage and partial-birth abortion. Far from appealing exclusively to a narrow Republican base, opposition to gay marriage is strongest among the Democratic base: blacks, Hispanics, blue-collar workers and the elderly. There were marriage amendments on the ballot in Michigan and Ohio. Bush won Ohio narrowly and lost Michigan by only 2 points. How different might that have been if Bush hadn't run from the issue.
This isn't an exageration. I know many dems that voted republican this year for exactly the same reason. The democratic party has lost touch with a large portion of democratic voters. They showed that this year more than anything else.
-
PS... I do think she missed on the "how different would it have been if bush hadn't run from the issue..." part. But the fact that the Dems managed to alienate their own voters on these subjects is undeniable.
-
lazs,
I'm really not sure either side's extremists really hurt them. It is more a matter of how much they help motivate their respective bases.
Take the quip about Air America radio. The majority of Americans can't even get that, so to claim that it is off putting is kinda a reach. Sure, it's offensive to dedicated right wingers, but then any center or left wing statement is going to raise their hackles.
I do agree that Moore managed to actually motivate the opposing base as well as the left base, but that is unusal for these people.
-
Mini D,
Yes, but when you refine those questions it becomes less lopsided. When you phrase the question of partial birth abortion this way "Do you support a ban on Partial Birth Abortion without any protections for the health of the mother?" that 80% drops way, way down. Similarly if you phrase the gay marriage question as "Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage and on Civil Unions that give similar rights?" the perentages drop way down.
That is the difference between the Republican and Democratic positions. Not huge, but present.
The Dems didn't alient their voters, the Repubs were more effective in distorting the other side's position.
-
Karnak
were did you see a brake down of what was important to the voters?
I would like to have a look.
Thanks
-
Dems dont want to listen to why they lost which is good, dont bother to point it out...Better for us to keep winning the elections...
IKON
-
GtorA2,
Here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
And blatantly stealing a post from another board:
Most Important Quality of your candidate:
Bush Voters: Religious Faith (91%) and honesty/trustworthiness (70%)
Kerry Voters: Will Bring about change (95%) and intelligence (91%)
Church Attendance:
Bush Voters: 63% of Bush Voters attend church more than once a week, 58% attended church at least once a wekk
Kerry Voters: In comparison, only 35% and 41% of Kerry voters go to church more than once a week or weekly
Most Important Issue:
Bush Voters: Terrorism (86%) and Moral values werethe most important issues for Bush Voters (79%). Only two other issues (Health Care and Economy/Jobs) were less important than Iraq
Kerry Voters: Iraq, Education, Economy/Jobs, and Health Care were all the most important (between 75 and 80%), terrorism was a distant concern at 14%
Is Iraq Part of War on Terrorism?
Bush Voters: Yes, by 80%
Kerry Voters: No, by 88%
Bush Mostly Listens to:
Bush Voters: Ordinary Americans (93%)
Kerry Voters: Large Corporations (82%)
Type of Community
Bush Voters: 58% of voters in Rural America voted for Bush, making up his largest contigent, followed by small towns (50%) and suburbs (51%)
Kerry Voters: In contrast, 62% of big cities voted for Kerry
1K0N,
We're listening and thinking about it.
One point that I have long maintained is that we (Dems) should get away from Gun Control.
-
Karnak, you're trying to get way to specific... and think you're actually making sense when you do it. You're not.
You seem to think that if the question had been phrased differently, people would have responded more pro. In truth, the word "abortion" is at the root of the problem... not the specifics of partial birth abortion. This is something democratic leaders simply are not grasping. Thanks for demonstrating why.
-
Mini D,
Evidence?
Last poll I saw said 55% of Americans support a right to choose in the first trimester. Further the polls I've seen that make the distinctions I mentioned do show markedly different results from the simple black and white choices you listed.
Note that Bush did not win 80% of the vote, he won 51% of the vote.
-
Karnak,
Nice post thanks.
The first thing that ran through my mind on this was
terrorism was a distant concern at 14%
I gues they have forgoten?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I gues they have forgoten?
Please God, do not let this statemet inspire another nevar forgit post/thread.
-SW
-
Wulfie
You do not find it interesting how low this was?
I said it was a first thing that came to mind not right.
-
GtoRA2,
Don't read to specific a meaning into these things. There are a lot of possible reasons.
For example in my case I don't, and never have, felt a personal threat from terrorism. I have talked to people who were near frantic with worry about a terrorist attack at some essentially nameless location like Novato, CA. I believe that Bush and Kerry would both go after the terrorists as they should, though I think Kerry would have been slightly more effective. Given the relatively even status I held the two candidates in regards to terrorism and my lack of personal fear about it, it was not that high a concern for me.
So you see in my case it wasn't an issue really because I trusted Bush and Kerry to both take care of it. I think Bush will get Osama bin Laden.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Note that Bush did not win 80% of the vote, he won 51% of the vote.
Plus with a 60% participation it's pretty difficult to have the said "80% of the American"...
Or I can't do maths again :)
-
Karnak,
I am not reading much into, it was just a flash though, you know like the have you forgoten song jumped into my head.
Honestly on a personal level I am not worried about terrorism at all, and it has not effected my life at all. I do realise it is a threat though and needs to be activly countered.
unfortunatly, neither Bush or Kerry is willing to do what really needs to be done to secure this nation, and that is close the borders for real.
-
Well, I can't speak for anybody else, but rest assured this Liberal hasn't forgotten.
Originally posted by GtoRA2
unfortunatly, neither Bush or Kerry is willing to do what really needs to be done to secure this nation, and that is close the borders for real.
That's true.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
unfortunatly, neither Bush or Kerry is willing to do what really needs to be done to secure this nation, and that is close the borders for real.
Respectfully, that is exactly the wrong approach. Nobody ever won a conflict of any kind by being on the defensive. You gotta go after them, find them, destroy them, and make sure they can't come after you. Defensive measures are important, yes...but they can't keep you safe forever. No defensive system can work all the time, every time, perfectly.
That is why I support Bush. He is doing exactly that--going on the offensive against our enemies. Are all his decisions correct? I don't know, and nobody can know for years. But he is doing the right thing, i think, i hope, and i pray.
shubie
-
rshubert,
America is strong enough to do both at the same time. Nobody suggested playing turtle. That we must go after the terrorists and kill them is clear.
-
Ann is funny. She acctually posted that the difference between the exit poles and the actual outcome must mean that the democrats fudged the exit poles.
Man she wrote a whole page on the subject.
I wonder if there could be any other possible explanation behind why the exit pole and the electronic poling station had different results?
-
The common reason I've seen given is the margin of error in the exit polls.
The paranoid Democrat reason given is Bush friendly computers altering people's votes.
Of the three "theories" I'll take the margin of error in the exit poll.
;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
One point that I have long maintained is that we (Dems) should get away from Gun Control.
I would like to see the Democrats go back to being a party of the common people. That would mean adopting Republican views on both gays and gun control. I don't know if that is feasible though.
Even if they did, I don't think many would believe them. What alot of people "know" about the Democrats' positions is really what Republicans have told them. The Democrats have a large credibility gap to overcome.
My own mother was unaware that Bill Clinton ran a budget surplus by the end of his second term. She equates "tax and spend liberals" with Democrats, and that is a success of a long term Republican smear campaign. She thinks Republicans are the fiscally conservative party, doesn't know our deficit is 500 billion, and doesn't know the difference between "debt" and "deficit". Among her reasons in voting for Bush was that she felt Teresa Heinz Kerry would be a "disaster" as a first lady.
-
Do you have some historical context for exit polls being inaccurate?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Do you have some historical context for exit polls being inaccurate?
Florida 2000 comes to mind. Exit polls had Gore taking the state by a 15% margin.
-
I read on another BB site that they have a margin of error of 3%. I can't vouch for that figure though as it was out up by another poster and I don't recall if (s)he had a source backing it up.
Oboe, I'm sorry to hear that. I wish people on both sides would take the effort to educate themselves with the real facts and make their choices based on that. I respect a Republican who knows their facts and votes Republican based on them a heck of a lot more than I do a Democrat who doesn't and votes based on rumors and propaganda, even though I agree with the Democrat's vote. Whatever your choice, make it an informed choice.
Here's a real fact: Bill Clinton's surplus was only a surplus if you count raiding the Social Security taxes (a standard tactic that Administrations of both partys do and one of the biggest reasons Social Security is in so much trouble) that were coming in. The best he, and the Republican Congress, did in real terms was to massively shrink the deficit.
-
rshubert
You are right we need to be out there killing them and taking away safe havens of terror.
But thats only half the job, leaving our border open and unprotected is IS going to lead to a terror attack and death here.
The reason both parties ignore it is they thing ilegals will be voters in the future and or they do not want to alienate the special interest that use that ilegal labor.
-
How can anyone suggest that gay marriage was the most important issue exercising voters on polling day? It's absurd. Ann Coulter is so far off the wall, she is practically parodying herself. She also definitely underestimates Karl Rove's influence.
It's interesting too that so many myths have already begun to grow. Everything she wrote I've seen in one form or other elsewhere. She's a plagiarist apart from anything else. A worthy right wing equivalent to Michael Moore. Except Moore is funny, sometimes.
-
Karnak,
I am pretty conservitive, and I am with y ou on coulter being a nutter in the same league as moore.
She is not all honest all the time, and she is such a rabid ***** she makes all conservitives look bad..
Plus she is smurfy.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Ann is funny. She acctually posted that the difference between the exit poles and the actual outcome must mean that the democrats fudged the exit poles.
Man she wrote a whole page on the subject.
Thats not as funny as the PBS coverage! Bill "Lenin" Moyers and Charlie Rose were SERUIOUSLY[/b] discussing a Coup e'Etat by the Republicans if Bush didnt win.
Think about that for a second...
Ann is a kook, but a lot of the stuff she says, she says tounge in cheek with a smirk on her face. "Lenin" Moyers and Charlie Rose were having a dead serious discussion about when and how the Republican Coup was going to unfold if they didnt win!! If I didnt know better I'd have thought it was a Saturdat Night Live skit.
Moyers is a pathetic farce.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Mini D,
Note that Bush did not win 80% of the vote, he won 51% of the vote.
which according to every political analyst I've seen interviewed is Huge in todays modern political arena.
they pretty much all agree that elections ago 51% -48%would be a pretty slim victory but with the arena as it is now they have it down to such a science that a 3% victory a pretty big margin.
Just for the record going by pure numbers I personally would agree 51% -48% isnt huge.
But the "experts" say otherwise
Actually the only ones I see calling it a slim margin are Democrat senators
-
Originally posted by oboe
\she felt Teresa Heinz Kerry would be a "disaster" as a first lady.
LOL I doubt you would find many on either side that could honestly dissagree with that one.
Had Kerry won and I were he I'd make her an ambassador to someplace like bora bora or Kenya, or ANYPLACE outside the USA just got her her out of the country for 4-8 years.
She woulda been an embarrassment waiting to happen
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Just for the record going by pure numbers I personally would agree 51% -48% isnt huge.
But the "experts" say otherwise
Actually the only ones I see calling it a slim margin are Democrat senators
Bush won Ohio by more than Kennedy won the entire nation by in 1960. You want to see a "stolen" election, take a look at Texas and Illinois in 1960.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Florida 2000 comes to mind. Exit polls had Gore taking the state by a 15% margin.
lol thats an increadable example to chose
-
DREDIOCK,
I agree that a 3% margin is a good solid win. It isn't a 60% mandate, but it is a solid win.
What I was refering to was Mini D's 80% being used to indicate that 80% of the voters voted based on Gay marriage when clearly they did not as the actual breakdown was 51% to 48%.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Wulfie
You do not find it interesting how low this was?
I said it was a first thing that came to mind not right.
No, I don't. I didn't want some "patriot" to spot your post and decide for another crying eagle thread. They sicken me, especially when it's the same people that claim the media over sensationlizes.
-SW
-
and thus one of the fundamental flaws in the dumbacrat brain ...
ann = michael m
the mm mindset cost them the election whereas the ann mindset won it for the conservatives ....
but please ... keep up the good work dems :)
-
Like I said... I voted for a moderate democrat. I voted for Bush.
Gun control? The democrats want to take away rights and they think that makes em "progressive"? They want to ban hobbies like Hot Rods and that makes em "progressive"?
For some of us... movement in the wrong direction is not progress.
I would vote for a moderate democrat who was for small government and strengthening the constitutional rights of Americans.
lazs
-
That means you will never vote democratic. Their whole worldview is that government is the answer, and individuals are not to be trusted with dangerous toys. The death of the "dixiecrats" in the last few elections seems to me to show that the country does not, in general, agree with that philosophy.
shubie
-
see shubie... there are things we can agree on.
lazs
-
I'm not sure what the word "Dixiecrats" means. Is it a slur against southern democrats? If so, what is the dividing ideology between Dixiecrats and Democrats? Just curious. Dividing the Democratic party sounds like a good idea to me.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
see shubie... there are things we can agree on.
lazs
Yeah, but i still get a kick out of bombing toolsheds and driving gun tractors...
shubie
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm not sure what the word "Dixiecrats" means. Is it a slur against southern democrats? If so, what is the dividing ideology between Dixiecrats and Democrats? Just curious. Dividing the Democratic party sounds like a good idea to me.
The dixiecrats were a group of (percieved) conservative democrats from southern states, no slur implied. They typically ran on "mom and apple pie" at home, then went to Washington and voted straight party line liberal Roosevelt-style leftist...(okay, I'm starting to rant).
In 1980, there were more than 20 Dixiecrat Senators, now there's one left, good ol' Bobby (KKK) Byrd.
shubie
-
Dixiecrat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The States' Rights Democratic Party, usually known as the Dixiecrat Party, was a short-lived splinter group that broke from the Democratic Party in 1948. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. The popular name of the party is a portmanteau originated from "Dixie", which is a term used to describe the South.
The party was formed after a walkout of Southern delegates, led by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, from the 1948 Democratic National Convention. The walkout was prompted by a controversial speech by Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota urging the party to adopt an anti-segregationist platform, based on the shared experience of black and white Americans during World War II. After the announcement by President Harry Truman that his platform would advocate the passage of civil rights laws, Thurmond helped organize the walkout delegates into a separate party, whose platform was ostensibly concerned with states' rights.
Thurmond subsequently ran for President on the Dixiecrat ticket in the 1948 election, and carried the previously solid Democratic states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, receiving 1,169,021 popular votes and 39 electorial votes. The split in the Democratic party in the 1948 election was seen as virtually guaranteeing a victory by the Republican nominee, Thomas E. Dewey of New York, yet Truman won re-election in an upset.
The "Dixiecrat" Party largely dissolved after the 1948 election. Thurmond later joined the Republican Party. Nevertheless, the split in the Democratic party was permanent, eventually resulting in the loss of the South as a Democratic stronghold after 1956. In the 1960s, the courting of formerly Democratic white Southern voters was the basis of the "southern strategy" by Richard Nixon. Republican Barry Goldwater carried the Deep South in 1964, despite losing in a landslide in the rest of the nation to Lyndon Johnson of Texas. The only Democratic presidential candidate after 1956 to solidly carry the Deep South was Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
That means you will never vote democratic. Their whole worldview is that government is the answer, and individuals are not to be trusted with dangerous toys
This is merely regurgitated propaganda. That you evidently believe it so fully is sad.
Democrats are not nearly so lock stepped as this would make them out to be and it is demonstratably false that they always go for government interference. The Republicans have been on quite a binge of that lately.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
DREDIOCK,
I agree that a 3% margin is a good solid win. It isn't a 60% mandate, but it is a solid win.
What I was refering to was Mini D's 80% being used to indicate that 80% of the voters voted based on Gay marriage when clearly they did not as the actual breakdown was 51% to 48%.
Actually, you're seriously flawed with what you claim I was asserting and why the numbers were 51% to 48% and not 49% to 51%.
The vote swung republican. Most of the republicans I know that voted for kerry did so because of the gulf. Most of the democrats I know that voted for Bush did so because of gay marriage issues.
The 11 states that carried anti-gay laws were resoundingly defeated. The democrats firmly believed that their stance on gay marriage would help them secure democrat votes and they were seriously in error. 80% of the voters disagreed with that. If you don't believe that swung democrats to vote republicans, you are simply being obtuse. It doesn't need to swing it to an 80% 20% margin, it just needs to swing it 5 million votes.
The dems seem to be insisting that it was the call to the conservative right that made the difference. The conservative right were voting bush regardless. It was the loss in the conservative left that lost the vote for the dems this year. They forced their hands... completely forgeting who their voters were. The odd thing is there seems to be an absolute refusal by the dems to accept tthis was a result of an extremely poor strategy.
-
Good post about the Dixiecrats. Its no secret where they wound up and where the term "neocon" is comming from. Although they spend money like a neurotic woman feeling fat (excuse the stereotype), they embrace "traditional values" (e.g., no affirmative action, no porn (we gota clean up the internet you know), no art that shows privates, no alcohol, and of course a distinct hate for "jew lawyers").
Its going to be interesting to watch the civil war in the GOP. The fiscal conservatives (Nixon era) are not going to put up with the pork spending of the Dixiecrats/neocons.
-
Dixiecrats, Neocons, if the Democrats were as good at political strategery as they are at coming up with derisive names they'd rule the world.
-
Neocon isn't a slur itself, more of a definition assigned to a political movement. It means "new conservative" as opposed to old "paleoconservatives" like George Will and Pat Buchanan (and many others), who strongly disagree with the highly liberal direction of the current administration's conservative policy (liberal fiscally, where the role of central government is concerned, and in foreign policy but not socially).
The radical neoconservatives, who appeared in the 1960s, are the first seriously intelligent movement on the American right since the 19th century. They want to remake the international order under effective U.S. hegemony, destroy America's enemies and cripple or eliminate the United Nations and other institutions making a claim to international jurisdiction...
The main intellectual influence on the neoconservatives has been the philosopher Leo Strauss, who left Germany in 1938 and taught for many years at the University of Chicago. Several of the neoconservatives studied under him. Wolfowitz and Shulsky took doctorates under him.
http://www.iht.com/articles/96307.html
Unfortunatley, Dxiecrat is a case of "if the shoe fits." This isn't some conspiracy theory. The Southern Democrats split with the party over the civil rights movement and they weren't quite about it. Some, like Trent Lott even acknowledged it recently - to his regret. To the extent that the South is Dixiecrat today is is debatable, but I would imagine there is still a strong element that supports antebellum dixie ideals as evidenced by the various Confederate flag/state symbols debates. Of course there are plenty who don't, and Democrats like Robert Byrd.
Charon
-
So, you're telling me then that it wasn't the Democrats that coined these terms and that they aren't spoken through sneering lips?
-
Mini D,
Yes, I understood that. I think it shows in the poll numbers I posted of what people felt was important and why they voted the way they did.
I will readily admit that the gay marriage issue is one that makes no sense to me. I just can't understand why what other people do matters to people when it harms nobody. The best I can come up with is that they disagree with me on the "harms nobody" conclusion.
-
karnak... you are probably right... the democrats should look for an even more liberal candidate for 08...
lazs
-
Some neoconservatives like William Kristol freely accept the term, some like Wolfowitz feel it is a bit academically imprecise. Conservatives like Novak and Buchanan freely use the term. It does describe a political philosophy that is fundamentally different in a variety of areas from traditional conservative philosophy. If you don’t know the differences, then they may be worth looking into if you consider yourself a conservative.
The term was coined by socialist Michael Harrington, who wanted a way to characterize former leftists who had moved significantly to the right -- people he had been deriding as "socialists for Nixon."
Many of the men and women to whom the neoconservative label is applied to reject the title, arguing it is an artificial and abstract creation. The fact that its use has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long-term. David Horowitz, a purported leading neo-con thinker offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:
"Neo-conservatism" is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today "neo-conservatism" identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
Similarly, many other supposed neoconservatives believe that the term has been adopted by the political left to stereotype supporters of U.S. foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration. Others have similarly likened descriptions of neoconservatism to a conspiracy theory and attribute the term to anti-Semitism. Paul Wolfowitz has denounced the term as meaningless label, saying:
"[If] you read the Middle Eastern press, it seems to be a euphemism for some kind of nefarious Zionist conspiracy. But I think that, in my view it's very important to approach [foreign policy] not from a doctrinal point of view. I think almost every case I know is different. Indonesia is different from the Philippines. Iraq is different from Indonesia. I think there are certain principles that I believe are American principles -- both realism and idealism. I guess I'd like to call myself a democratic realist. I don't know if that makes me a neo-conservative or not."
Other "traditional" conservatives (e.g., Jonah Goldberg) have rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative." Other critics have similarly argued the term has been rendered meaningless through excessive and inconsistant use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumseld are often identified as leading "neocons" despite the fact that both men have been life-long conservative Republicans. Such critics thus largely reject the claim that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism.
Other traditional conservatives are likewise skeptical of the contemporary usage term, and may dislike being associated with the stereotypes, or even the supposed agendas of the "neocons." Conservative columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."
On the other hand, some of those identified as neoconservatives embrace the term. For example, Irving Kristol (who once famously defined a "neoconservative" as "a liberal who got mugged by reality") published a collection of his essays under the tile Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (paperback ISBN 1566632285, hardcover ISBN 0028740211). Use of the term enables neoconservatives to distinguish themselves from conservatives when they find it advantageous to do so. In addition, neoconservatives who were once leftists can soften the implication that they have "defected" to the side they once opposed.
As for “dixiecrat” it doesn’t seem to have been much of a slur:
For decades, a favorite item on the breakfast menu at Cogburn's Grill in Columbia was the Dixiecrat -- link sausage wrapped with a slice of plain white bread. A Charlotte News headline writer coined the term for the States' Rights Democratic Party, Strom Thurmond's presidential vehicle in 1948.
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:L05wB3omZtIJ:[url]www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/6201401.htm+Dixiecrat+coined+the+term&hl=en[/url]
The Charlotte News was the Democratic paper, and had been for 60 years at the time. I imagine it was just a case of coming up with a clever definition for the course the party was taking at the time. I don’t know if the paper went with the flow afterwards or kept its focus. Regardless, being a “Dixie Democrat” was something Thurmond’s supporters were proud of in the day and whose opponents found objectionable.
As to the sneering, that’s no different than the way “Dem” or “Libs” is used on the board. The people who consider themselves to be Democrats or liberal leaning do not see the terms as an insult, but the people who are doing the sneering just might.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Mini D,
Yes, I understood that. I think it shows in the poll numbers I posted of what people felt was important and why they voted the way they did.
Actually, the polls you posted were just that... polls. You need to look at what the voters actually voted on. Not what those willing to stop and be interviewed said they voted on.
I will readily admit that the gay marriage issue is one that makes no sense to me. I just can't understand why what other people do matters to people when it harms nobody. The best I can come up with is that they disagree with me on the "harms nobody" conclusion.
I've heard this stated many times and feel it is completely trivializing the fundamental family beliefs in regards to homosexuality. Once again... a fatal flaw with the democratic party.
-
>>I've heard this stated many times and feel it is completely trivializing the fundamental family beliefs in regards to homosexuality.<<
A few direct questions.
What are the "funamental family beliefs"
on homosexuality?
What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on pornography?
What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on racism or bigotry?
What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on tolerance?
Edit:
What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on getting drunk?
What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on gambling?
What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on glottony?
I am dead serious. I just want a score card to refer to as it seems to me that "family fundamental beliefs" change whenever it's convenient, or I just don't get them.
Please elaborate on "fundamental family beliefs' and "traditional values. "
If its Biblical beliefs please say so.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>I've heard this stated many times and feel it is completely trivializing the fundamental family beliefs in regards to homosexuality.<<
A few direct questions.
What are the "funamental family beliefs"
on homosexuality?
What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on pornography?
What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on racism or bigotry?
What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on tolerance?
Edit:
What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on getting drunk?
What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on gambling?
What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on glottony?
I am dead serious. I just want a score card to refer to as it seems to me that "family fundamental beliefs" change whenever it's convenient, or I just don't get them.
Please elaborate on "fundamental family beliefs' and "traditional values. "
If its Biblical beliefs please say so.
Nothing mysterious about "fundamental family beliefs" Tweety. Just ask yourself how each of those questions affect a family. By family I mean parents and child(ren).
-
AKIron,
OK, you've got me stumped. How does gay marriage, or even just gay civil unions, affect a family in a negative way?
I've never gotten a straight answer out of anybody on that. Only a bunch of insinuations and attacks of gay people because what they do is gross.
-
No you see thats where you are wrong - it is quite confusing.
From http://www.traditionalvalues.org/defined.php
>>While other pro-family groups may have their own specific definitions of what "traditional values" means, here's what we consider to be traditional values<<
Its confusing as hell if each group has its own definition of "traditional values."
So what, one group decides they LIKE porn, so they just decide not to include it in THEIR "traditional values"??
Another hates blacks, so they decide not to include racism in THEIR "traditional values"???
Another likes to gamble so they cross that one off THEIR "traditional values"
Another like to drink whisky so - snip - that comes off THEIR "traditional values."
Well it isn't traditional values anymore is it? Its agendas.
What is "traditional values"? An easily demonstrated code word(s) for intolerance.
-
"What is "traditional values"? An easily demonstrated code word(s) for intolerance."
Intolerance isn't always a bad thing. Should we tolerate murderers? Obviously not. Should we tolerate child porno? Once again, reasonable people would say "no". So why use "intolerance" as though it's a dirty word?
A common argumet tactic both sides like to use is the attempt to villify the opposing side as bigoted. This is not beneficial to the discussion at all.
Some would argue that there is no reason to be tolerant of the "normalization" of homosexuality any more than we should happily tolerate increased teen pregnancy. My own opinion? I do not in any way support bigotry against gays (seems most gays don't choose to be such so why hold it against them), but at the same time I don't feel society should normalize what is clearly abnormal behavior.
J_A_B
-
My mistake..
Traditional values is a euphemism for white archaic America. Hope thats more clear.
-
J_A_B is right that there is a lot of anger and intolerance on both sides. It is certainly a knotty issue.
Thanks for the discussion guys. I'm bowing out at this point.
all.
-
>>..but at the same time I don't feel society should normalize what is clearly abnormal behavior.
<<
Again - which abnormal behaviors? Sexual addiction? Man the advertising world feeds on sex. Sexual deviancy - like voyeuristic addiction to internet porn. The overuse of alcohol - ever see a football game without a Budweiser commercial?? Gambling - POWERBALL!!
I've got news for you. American business IS normalizing abnormal behavior.
-
Oops. Double post.
-
May all your daughters grow up to be like Ann. You will be so proud.
Or as a wife she would be a treasure beyond compare!
:rolleyes:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
"The only beef Enron employees have with top management is that management did not inform employees of the collapse in time to allow them to get in on the swindle. If Enron executives had shouted, "Head for the hills!" the employees might have had time to sucker other Americans into buying wildly over-inflated Enron stock. Just because your boss is a criminal doesn't make you a hero. "
"Cheney is my ideal man. Because he's solid. He's funny. He's very handsome. He was a football player. People don't think about him as the glamour type because he's a serious person, he wears glasses, he's lost his hair. But he's a very handsome man. And you cannot imagine him losing his temper, which I find extremely sexy. Men who get upset and lose their tempers and claim to be sensitive males: talk about girly boys. No, there's a reason hurricanes are named after women and homosexual men, it's one of our little methods of social control. We're supposed to fly off the handle."
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." (Ann Coulter in a New York Observer interview, 8/20/2002)
"Someone persuaded poor, dear Nancy Reagan that research on human embryos might have saved her Ronnie from Alzheimer's. Now the rest of us are supposed to shut up because the wife of America's greatest president (oh, save your breath, girls!) supports stem-cell research...
But you can't blame Nancy. As everyone saw once again last week, she's still madly in love with the guy. She'd probably support harvesting full-grown, living humans if it would bring back Ronnie. Of course, I thought it was cute and not creepy that she consulted an astrologer about Reagan's schedule after he was shot."
"Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do..."
-
Ann Coulter is a right-wing extremist wacko, IMO. But that's her right, same as the leftist wackos have their right to their own brand of wierdness. In the overall signal-to-noise ratio, they seem to cancel each other out.
"American business IS normalizing abnormal behavior."
Indeed it is. That's the reality of the situation. Does that automatically make it a good thing? I would suggest that in many cases business is permitted to go too far. Indeed, the whole gay marriage thing is extremely minor compared to some other social issues affecting society.
I don't care much what people do sexually in their own homes. Homesexuality, groupsex, porno, BDSM, whatever wierd stuff you can think of...doesn't make a bit of difference to me. Well, not as long as it's adults we're talking about anyway. What you do with your free time is up to you. I've heard that some states actually ban certain types of sex and/or sexual devices inside people's own homes....I view such laws as draconian and entirely un-American. At the same time, I don't feel society should necessarily encourage or normalize certain behaviors--and I DON'T only mean gays.
Sadly, we HAVE normalized a belief that getting married/divorced repeatedly is okay. Talking about messed up! Is a pair of gay men living together so horrible, while a man who marries and divorces 6 times represents "good family values"? What a joke. Even hetrosexual couples need stronger restrictions on access to marriage. It's one of those things which needs to be a privledge, not a right. Otherwise, government needs to get its nose out of the marriage business entirely. I am NOT happy with the status quo.
Oh and before you get any ideas, I am not religious in any way, shape, or form. In fact, extremely religious people worry me in a way that gays never will.
J_A_B
-
>>Indeed it is. That's the reality of the situation. Does that automatically make it a good thing? I would suggest that in many cases business is permitted to go too far. Indeed, the whole gay marriage thing is extremely minor compared to some other social issues affecting society.
<<
Agree completely. I find your posts to be sane as compared to to the hyperbole that fills this forum.
-
jab... I agree to an extent... any group with an agenda worries me with the possible exception of the NRA and only because they are fighting so hard that their only agenda is the human right to keep and bear arms... when they get too powerful then I will worry about them.
The trick is to play the powerful groups against each other.
I share your fears about religious groups and share your lack of fear about gays... I do think that marriage is no more than a tax incentive like mortage deductions and should have the same effect... encourage behavior. Do we want to encourage gay marrige and divorce and all the rest? Not sure. Will it trivialize "normal" marriage? not sure. will it cost money? yep. Will the divorce lawyers love it? you bet. much bigger pool to fleece...
I fear lawyers more than christians or religious groups and government more than either... I fear gays the least of all.
lazs
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"American business IS normalizing abnormal behavior."
Indeed it is. That's the reality of the situation. Does that automatically make it a good thing? I would suggest that in many cases business is permitted to go too far. Indeed, the whole gay marriage thing is extremely minor compared to some other social issues affecting society.
American business is all about avoiding lawsuits. The courts are normalizing abnormal behavior. What you see is the result of letting the voters have some say in the subject. Not that it matters... the supreme court will overturn these bills anyways.