What are your thoughts of why Kerry lost the election? Most Democrats that I know that voted Republican did not necessarily like Bush but did not like the fact that the Democratic party is not against same-sex marraige or stem cell research.
So this thread is for the Democrats and the Dems that crossed over. What needs to be done to change the party?
I know so many Christians that voted for Bush. They worry that the ACLU is too tied to the democratic party. They worry about God being taken out of the country, of us becoming to secular.
fuscia said this in post #3 : I know so many Christians that voted for Bush. They worry that the ACLU is too tied to the democratic party. They worry about God being taken out of the country, of us becoming to secular.
I worry about just the opposite. I worry that we are not secular, that we don't practice what we preach when it comes to freedom of religion. Sure, you're free, but the entire country is biased towards Christianity since the Christians were the ones who invaded this land to begin with.
What place has God in politics? What's God's role in favoring a particular country over any other? Does He not love all people the same no matter what their creed, race or country of origin? Why should our country as a political foundation profess faith? Is it not enough that faith is permitted among the people and that they can erect temples, churches or whatever they like wherever they like for worship?
Indeed, it does worry me that Christians favor the ways of Bush. The ways of war and of aggression. Of course Christianity has had a historically bloody past as with any religion major religion with the possible exception of Buddhism. Does it not raise a warning flag that perhaps strong religious affiliations don't ever lead to peace and preservation of life?
I am a Christian and I voted for who I thought would better serve my family and the future of this country. Us mommies don't like to see huge deficits. I voted for Kerry.
if Kerry's platform had been more focused on what he WOULD do rather than what he would NOT do I think many, many more people would have supported him.
His whole platform was basically "I'm not Bush" and he made a lot of promises that I'm not sure he would have been able to keep.
Dekka00 said this in post #6 : if Kerry's platform had been more focused on what he WOULD do rather than what he would NOT do I think many, many more people would have supported him.
Agreed.
quote:
schmiggens said this in post #7 : What happens to Kerry now? Does he stay Leader of his party, or do they vote a new Leader in?
Kerry is still a U.S. Senator - he will return to his Senate job. Whether or not he is the Democratic National Party's selection for 2008 remains to be seen. It is possible, but Al Gore fared about as well as Kerry did and had the experience of being Clinton's VP to add foundation, but he lost as well.
Kerry used too many words and tried to explain too many grey areas. Duck shooting and bible bashing didn't suit him either. Kerry, like Gore before him, lacked the warmth and charm of Bill Clinton.
On the other hand, Bush's lack of vocabulary worked for him and people understand his simplistic world view and saw him as the tough father figure who is going to make all the bad stuff go away.
a lot of people did not like teresa heinz kerry. my wife, who voted for kerry, was one who did not care for her at all. but i don't doubt that she cost john a lot of potential votes.
Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller's electrifying speech at the Republican Convention may overshadow the fact that another well-known Democrat - former New York's former mayor, Ed Koch - has also crossed party lines to support and campaign for President George W. Bush.
Never a shrinking violet, Mr. Koch says he disagrees with Mr. Bush on virtually all domestic issues, but that the overriding issue of our time is the war on terrorism - and that his own Democratic Party doesn't have the "stomach" (Mr. Koch's word) for the fight. Mayor Koch understands that if we don't win the war on terrorism, nothing else will matter.
Supporters of both political parties, as well as independent voters, all need to understand what Ed Koch understands: This election is about life and death, in an age when nuclear weapons can be developed and sold to terrorists.
This election is not even about who will be in the White House the next four years. It is about a war that must be fought for more years than any given president will occupy the White House.
Just one weak administration can make the job harder for the administrations that follow - and disastrous for the country.
No small part of the audacity of those who attacked this country on September 11, 2001, resulted from the weakness of the Clinton years, when there were only token responses to acts of terrorism against Americans at home and abroad.
When the World Trade Center was first attacked, during the Clinton administration, that terrorist bombing by Islamic extremists was treated as a simple criminal matter and swept under the rug. Mr. Clinton similarly swept under the rug the bombing of our embassies abroad and bought off the North Koreans by helping them with their nuclear program, in exchange for promises that they never kept.
It was all about getting bad news off the front page and passing along the hard underlying problems to his successors. But the problem goes deeper than Bill Clinton.
Since 1972, when the far left took control of the Democratic Party, congressional Democrats have regularly voted against military spending and against spending for the intelligence services. For nearly two decades, John Kerry has voted consistently against military preparedness and against money for the very intelligence agencies he now so loudly criticizes.
When the Soviets put nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe, pointed at Western Europe, Ronald Reagan countered by putting American nuclear missiles in Western Europe, pointed at the Soviet Union. John Kerry advocated a "nuclear freeze" instead. In other words, freeze the Soviet advantage in place.
Some media pundits say Mr. Kerry's poor showing in polls is due to his following the wrong political strategy in this campaign. They say he overemphasized his Vietnam War record.
But what else did he to emphasize?
Can you run for office during a war on terrorism by citing a voting record that includes being antimilitary for decades? Can you even rely on a Senate record in favor of welfare state spending, at a time when handing out goodies takes a back seat to national security?
What was left for Mr. Kerry, except trying to resurrect Vietnam, with his own spin on it, and making big promises for the future? Moreover, with the media on his side - 12 to 1 inside the Beltway - he had little to fear from that quarter.
How could Mr. Kerry know the Swift boat men who served with him in Vietnam would suddenly emerge to challenge his version of events there? Or that two prominent members of his own party would become so disgusted with him that they would throw their support to Mr. Bush?
The media have made such a bugaboo about "negative" statements or "attacks" you might think political campaigns are supposed to be nothing but happy talk. But which is worse, that some unpleasant facts come out during a campaign or someone is allowed to lie his way into the White House, with all our lives in his hands, on the basis of image and spin?
Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Why Democrats Should Vote for Bush
Tammy Bruce
Friday, Oct. 29, 2004
As a Democrat and a pro-choice feminist, it’s time for me to explain why I support the president, and why other thoughtful Democrats should join me in doing so.
I can’t tell you how many e-mails I’ve received from other Democrats either condemning me for not toeing the line, while others write who are genuinely curious, after all the hate-mongering and demonizing of Republicans and the president specifically, they hope I can ease their fears about what their inclination to vote for the president means about them.
The simple answer? It means you’re a confident liberal, a thoughtful person who realizes that game of party loyalty takes a back seat to the safety of your family and this nation.
It also means you take the slogans of “choice” and “radical individualism” seriously. Isn’t it ironic that there’s nothing more radically individual these days than a liberal who doesn’t conform?
For me, Authentic Feminism is rooted in making it possible for people to make the choices that best suit them.
If you have recognized the weakness of John Kerry, and know in your heart a vote for the president is the right thing to do, join me and do it! It can be done with a clear conscience as you embrace the radical individual inside you that attracted you to liberal causes in the first place.
Because some things simply transcend party lines, when in front of that Early Voting touch screen, I stood there as an American first, and voted for George W. Bush. This nation, our lives, and the lives our children require nothing less.
I explain to detractors and supporters alike that President Bush is the man who will keep this nation safest.
The president and I hold dramatically divergent views on a number of social issues of importance to me, and yet for the 3,000 people who died on September 11th, abortion rights and same-sex civil unions mean absolutely nothing to them now.
These issues, while important to me and ones on which I will continue to speak out about, are luxuries in the face of a world war where the enemy is a stateless savage who hunts children and cuts off people’s heads.
We have a responsibility to leave this nation as great as it is to the next generation.
We all know, and must reflect on, the fact that the joy we have in our lives today is due to the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of other Americans who died fighting for this country. Those soldiers did not die because they were promised 72 virgins in the afterlife, they fought not for themselves - they died in the most noble of American causes - so future generations - us - could live in freedom.
I do not take that action for granted, and I have learned that generosity of spirit and commitment to freedom is inherent in each of us, and a duty we cannot shirk.
Those of you with children have a more immediate concern, which is the literal safety of the light of your life.
That little face looks up at you as you tuck her in, and sleeps gently knowing that Mommy and Daddy are there.
That same face stares at you in the morning, with a heart full of hope, limited only by her imagination because you confront, for her, the harsh realities of every day. And these days it’s not just about making a living, it’s about the Beslan school massacre, it’s a new al-Qaida tape threatening Americans at home, it’s about war and mad savages who have specifically targeted children.
I voted for President Bush because having a Pacifist Internationalist in the White House will only embolden those who salivate at the sight of our blood.
Having a man in the White House who stands for nothing will only excite Islamic Fascists who revel in torture and the cutting off of heads. I do not want a man in the White House who is so cold, when asked by a New York Times reporter how September 11th changed him, answers “It didn’t change me much at all.”
While I know a Bush presidency makes my work as a feminist more complicated and demanding, I will love and be grateful for every day I have the luxury of working on those issues. And frankly, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have a president who encourages social activism on issues.
Liberals make the mistake of thinking a Democrat president is indeed Daddy, who can be trusted in all things. Apathy soon follows that false comfort.
Bill Clinton showed us the decline of the Democratic Party into a gang spouting slogans to make women, gays and blacks feel Daddy was in the house, to our grave regret. What did we get? A sexual compulsive who put Monica Lewinsky on her knees instead of cutting bin Laden off at his.
Yes, there were plenty of Democrats, feminists, gays and blacks in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and on those fateful flights. I’m sure you would agree that in their last moments their literal lives were more important to them than party affiliation.
I want a president who will be strongest making sure tomorrow comes, that this nation not just survives, but emerges from this war like the others we have fought, in a world that has been transformed for the better. I want a president who understands this is war, not a “nuisance.”
I know George Bush has made many in the world angry, and frankly, I am dismayed at the hard feelings. A recent poll of Europeans revealed their general belief that Bush has made the world a more dangerous place.
Upon hearing that, I remind myself of the time President Reagan increased arms production and installed more Pershing Missiles in Europe as we faced down the Soviet Union.
President Reagan grappled with European polls, anger and resentment, all of which evaporated when the Soviet regime collapsed.
Yes, they hated Reagan, but he plodded on, never swayed by those polls or made doubtful by others’ hatred. His resolve freed Europe from the shadow of a bear which had no mercy and the blood of tens of millions on its paws.
As a man of faith with a love of this country, Reagan stayed the course, and did what he knew had to be done. He was a leader, and I’m proud to say, one that only America could deliver.
Today, President Bush faces the same polls, the same anger, and the same resentment as he, too, recognizes and engages a rabid enemy of civilization, Islamo-Fascists.
Europeans felt Reagan was leading them to Armageddon, as they now insist Bush is doing. We can’t know what it’s like for Europeans to see such a young nation doing so many things, but one thing Europe will find, again, is that while we may be wild, young and even cowboys on occasion, we have a pretty good track record of making the world a safer and better place.
With George W. Bush at the helm, this time will be no different.
I voted for President Bush because he has freed 50 million people, 25 million of which are women and girls. The feminist establishment, in a shameful exhibit of their hypocrisy, has ignored that fact.
As a feminist, I thank the president with my vote, in solidarity with the millions of Afghan and Iraqi women who now, courtesy of the president and our astounding military, finally have hope, liberty and freedom.
Like all of our presidents, George W. Bush is quintessentially an American. He’s a Cowboy. A Texan. He will never be mistaken for a Frenchman. He’s a Yalie. He’s a man of faith, a husband and father. He’s a man who has fought with and overcome addiction. He’s a man of strength and character.
And while he is also wrong on some issues, if I have to work harder on social issues, I want it to be against a man whom I can admire, who I know, despite our disagreements, honors me in his work to keep this nation free and great.
For those of you who are Democrats and liberals - and I know through my years as a leader in left wing causes, including feminist and gay activism - we all have gone through a sort of conditioning that makes dissent or difference a frightening prospect.
Republicans and conservatives have been decidedly demonized in your circle-perhaps by your own friends and family.
Let me tell you this - voting for the President does not change who you are or what you stand for. I stand for the classical liberal concepts of personal liberty and individualism, and have spent a great deal of my adult life working for those causes. I have found that “Choice” and “Individualism” are only slogans if you never act on them. Sometimes being yourself means straying from the expected, standing apart from your crowd.
November 2nd is a good a day to be a Democrat who’s an American first.
I worry about just the opposite. I worry that we are not secular, that we don't practice what we preach when it comes to freedom of religion. Sure, you're free, but the entire country is biased towards Christianity since the Christians were the ones who invaded this land to begin with.
What place has God in politics? What's God's role in favoring a particular country over any other? Does He not love all people the same no matter what their creed, race or country of origin? Why should our country as a political foundation profess faith? Is it not enough that faith is permitted among the people and that they can erect temples, churches or whatever they like wherever they like for worship?
Indeed, it does worry me that Christians favor the ways of Bush. The ways of war and of aggression. Of course Christianity has had a historically bloody past as with any religion major religion with the possible exception of Buddhism. Does it not raise a warning flag that perhaps strong religious affiliations don't ever lead to peace and preservation of life?
If you believe in God, he has a place in everything. How that is lost on anybody is beyond me.
God may love all of us equally, but he does not love abortion. He does not love homosexuality. He does not love sex outside of marriage. He wants us to pray to him throughout the day. So compare the Democrat platform vs. the Republican platform, and you'll see that if you are a believer, than clearly the Republican platform is for you.
Regarding the "bloody past" of Christianity, do you know what institution has led the charge regarding education and healthcare for the past several centuries? The Catholic Church. Do you know what insitutions provided the social safety net before welfare, social security, etc.? Christian churches. So the idea that religious affiliation does not lead to peace and preservation of live is absurd.
How long are liberal Democrats going to play the "inquisition" card anyway?
Finally, if you're so torn up that Christians originally "invaded" this land, then move to Egypt. It's one of the few places I can think of that hasn't gone through several iterations of conquering in the modern era. In this context, your subtle American self-loathing talking point about Europeans taking over Indian lands is completely irrelevant.
11-04-2004 02:09 AM
