Why Bush Won...

[Larry Gude]

It's been two weeks since we, the people, decided to keep the current administration employed.

We keep reading, every day, a new take on why Kerry lost.

Religion.
Rigged election.
Terror.
The economy.
Not enough fight on Kerry's part.
On and on.

No one wants to address one simple fact;

The Demcratic party wheeled out a candidate that was demonstrably, by his record, the most liberal Senator from his state. The other Senator is Ted Kennedy.

With all W's faults and widespread hatred of him, with all the questions about jobs, healthcare, Iraq, Osama etc, the Democratic party lost bigger this time than last.

How can this be?

John Kerrys politics are too far in one direction for this nation today. Probably ever. We just don't elect people who are extreme one way or another. We never have.

I wrote a post during the Democratic primary that because of this, being to liberal, Kerry was the ONLY guy among the major wannabes, Gephardt,
Lieberman, Dean even Edwards and the General, who COULD NOT WIN.

So, as time rolls by and this group or that group gets credit or blame for 2004 I thought it would be nice to remember who Kerry is politically and why, the real reason, he lost and, conversely, why Bush won; he's not to far one way or the other.

Have a nice day

 

[willie]

No one wants to address one simple fact;

The Demcratic party wheeled out a candidate that was demonstrably, by his record, the most liberal Senator from his state.

I don't think so. How could anyone label him as anything? His position depended on his audience. My belief is that a lot of Democrats did not trust him. Something else that isn't too far fetched is that probably 110 million voters did not want Teresa in the White House.

 

[Larry Gude]

Apparently...

...the way the 'think tanks' rate them, Kerry is about as liberal as they come.

I thought this was accepted common knowledge.

 

[MGKrebs]

I have a different take.
Republicans have succeeded in selling "the message". It pretty much doesn't matter who the candidate is. Republcans have convinced many Americans that if they want lower taxes, a smaller government, less welfare cheating, and safety, then they better vote Repub, no matter who the candidate is. (We're talking about undecideds here. The partisans (like me) HAVE bought into a philosophy, so even if we have a less than perfect candidate, to advance the philosophy, I will still vote Dem. It would take a pretty bad candidate, someone on the order of, say, George W. Bush, to get me to temporarily abandon my party. )

Dems are having to run on their candidates record, and too many Americans are not interested in records and policy's. Records can be distorted, and it is so hard to sort it all out. They just go for a gut feeling. The Repubs recognize this, and that's why they frame every issue as if it's a moral watershed (gay marriage, guns, 10 Commandments). ANYTHING to avoid talking about actual records.

 

[vraiblonde]

I have a different take.

Of course you do. And thank you for sharing.

 

[Pete]

Maynard, you still do not get it. Gay marriage, guns and the 10 Commandments ARE water shed moral issues for many people. Like it or not, the majority of Americans still believe in American values and not some ubber ultra progressive socialist state . Many of us still believe in; earning our own way, massing wealth, competing and winning, right and wrong, Charity, man and woman, children born to married male-female marriages and government should keep the peace and then keep the hell out of our houses. We also believe to different degrees that little things like “Thou shalt not kill, Honor thy mother and father are not tenants that are vile but are actually what this country was based on. We view people who are all aghast that the 10 Commandments are etched in marble and displayed in a courtroom as freaking weirdo’s who shriek to simple satisfy ailing sense of self importance so they can feel “big”.

Some of us while compassionate to those who WANT to help themselves have no trouble stepping over the twitching body of welfare suckling crack addict laying in the gutter to catch a bus to work. We think that government should be done at the lowest possible level, and not in Washington DC by a bunch of smug elitist detached calves that are firmly attached to the udder of a special interest cow. We hate smug a$$holes like Michael More and Babs Steisand who cannot possibly fathom the shiznit I go through everyday to eek out a meager existance telling me how to vote while a Hatian immigrant files down their toenails and applies a sealant. We detest crybabies and professional victims almost as much as we detest people who feel the need to reach in my pocket to finance their vision of a utopia for those that are nothing more than boils on the collective ass of society. We hate frearmongers and people who fling about crap words like "disenfranchisment", "stolen elections" and "moral majority". We hate sore losers. We hate being called bigots because we feel that the only qualifying factor for a job or a seat in a class is NOT race. We hate purveyors of gridlock, whining, backbiting, and obstruction out of pure spite, ask Tom Daschel. We have thick skin and are not going to blow a blood vessel if the school wants to have 2 minutes of silence in the morning for voluntary prayer, or has an Indian mascot for the football team.

The Democrats got beat this time because of all of these things. They also paraded out a man who’s early ambitions resulted in pictures of him lying to congress and throwing ribbons across a fence. You talked about record and the Republicans doing whatever they could to avoid theirs while your candidate based nearly his entire campaign on 4 months in Vietnam and never once heralded his own record in 20 years in congress because it was non-existent. Your candidate was a hypocrite posing as an outdoorsman and a hunter with a shotgun he voted to ban. Your candidate was viewed as a chameleon, changing spots from city to city based on polls or the favoring wind. Most notably though your candidate stood there day after day, despite ever taking a firm stand on anything and in the greatest New England elitist fashion attempted to tear down a stand up guy. If George Bush had taken a dump, Kerry would criticize it. If he breathed, Kerry criticized it. He never put forth ¼ the effort at touting his own plan than he did complaining about W’s.

Americans ADMIRE a man of ethics, a man of conviction, a man of principle, even if he is wrong from time to time. We are not above forgiving transgressions, ask Bill Clinton. We are a nation that believes in the 10 Commandments because you cannot argue they are bad even if you are an atheist. We believe in the right to own a gun for whatever reason and are appauled that someone would assault a basic right because some crack addict shoots a pimp with a gun, we are not like them don't treat us like them. We admire people who make their OWN way and not sit idly by waiting for an usher.

Your candidate for President and the other seats in congress lost because in the mad rush to seem cool and appease very vocal yet small groups they turned their backs on Americans then turned around and called Americans bad or stupid because they do not see the light. Americans are not going to elect a used car salesman to office, especially after he tells them they are stupid for not loving the Gremlin.


Go ahead, keep it up. Continue caling American stupid or uneducated simply because they don't see France or Canada as a social model we want to follow. If the Democratic party does not shuck the far left and embrace the principles that make real Americans happy there will be a whole lot more career Democrat politicians in the unemployment line with TerryMcAuliffe.

 

[Ken King]

Dems are having to run on their candidates record, and too many Americans are not interested in records and policy's. Records can be distorted, and it is so hard to sort it all out. They just go for a gut feeling. The Repubs recognize this, and that's why they frame every issue as if it's a moral watershed (gay marriage, guns, 10 Commandments). ANYTHING to avoid talking about actual records.

Did you say that they are running on their record? What points of Kerry’s 20 years in the Senate did he highlight as a significant contribution or of benefit to the Nation? I might be wrong but from what I recall his game plan seemed to be to avoid everything he had done since Vietnam, duck any direct policy questions and just keep saying that he can do things better then what Bush’s administration has done without ever saying how. To me it seemed as if he was running on the "trust me" campaign much like what is typically employed by shady used car salesmen.

(Note: I used the clarifier "shady" to indicate that not all used car salemen do this and should not consider this comment as a slam towards those that are honest)

 

[Penn]

pete, first of all, let me send accolades to you for writing an excellent summary as to why the Democrats lost this election.

Two, I apologize for hacking your post to bits, but I felt, from my point of view that these were the points that struck home to me:

Maynard, you still do not get it.

The Democrats got beat this time because of all of those things.

They also paraded out a man who’s early ambitions resulted in pictures of him lying to congress and throwing ribbons across a fence.

You talked about record and the Republicans doing whatever they could to avoid theirs while your candidate based nearly his entire campaign on 4 months in Vietnam, and never once heralded his own record in 20 years in congress because it was non-existent.

Your candidate was a hypocrite posing as an outdoorsman and a hunter with a shotgun he voted to ban.

Your candidate was viewed as a chameleon, changing spots from city to city based on polls or the favoring wind. Most notably though your candidate stood there day after day, despite never taking a firm stand on anything, in the greatest New England elitist fashion attempted to tear down a stand up guy.

If George Bush had taken a dump, Kerry would criticize it. If he breathed, Kerry criticized it. He never put forth ¼ the effort at touting his own plan than he did complaining about W’s.

Your candidate for President and the other seats in congress lost because in the mad rush to seem cool and appease very vocal yet small groups, they turned their backs on Americans then turned around and called Americans bad or stupid because they do not see the light. Americans are not going to elect a used car salesman to office, especially after he tells them they are stupid for not loving the Gremlin.

Go ahead, keep it up. Continue caling Americans stupid or uneducated, simply because they don't see France or Canada as a social model we want to follow. If the Democratic party does not shuck the far left and embrace the principles that make real Americans happy, there will be a whole lot more career Democrat politicians in the unemployment line with TerryMcAuliffe.

Again pete, bravo!

 

[mojorisin]

Dems are having to run on their candidates record, and too many Americans are not interested in records and policy's. Records can be distorted, and it is so hard to sort it all out. They just go for a gut feeling. The Repubs recognize this, and that's why they frame every issue as if it's a moral watershed (gay marriage, guns, 10 Commandments). ANYTHING to avoid talking about actual records.

Did you even watch the debates or follow the campaign at all? All Kerry did was attack Bush. If he actually would have ran on his record it would have been a landslide.

 

[Pete]

Did you even watch the debates or follow the campaign at all? All Kerry did was attack Bush. If he actually would have ran on his record it would have been a landslide.

Landslide in who's favor?

 

[MGKrebs]

Did you even watch the debates or follow the campaign at all? All Kerry did was attack Bush. If he actually would have ran on his record it would have been a landslide.

If you were depending on the debates to figure out the candidates positions, you missed the boat.

 

[Penn]

If you were depending on the debates to figure out the candidates positions, you missed the boat.

MGKrebs, I would have to say the folks in the "Red States" didn't miss a dayum thing!

 

[ylexot]

If you were depending on the debates to figure out the candidates positions, you missed the boat.

That is completely irrelevant. The point is that if Kerry actually had a position other than "Bush is bad" or if he had a record worth talking about, it would be apparent in the debates. It wasn't.

 

[Pete]

If you were depending on the debates to figure out the candidates positions, you missed the boat.

Go ahead, call more people stupid. It really works for you guys

 

[Penn]

I may hear some "that's irrelevant" cries from this one, but another telling signal to me, and probably many others, was when Zell Miller(D) came out in such a vigorous disavowment of J.F. Kerry and his "history".

Then based on what he'd seen as a Senator on Mr. Kerry's record, he laid out what we could expect from the great flip-flopper, were he to attain the Oval Office.

 

[ylexot]

According to Geraldo, Kerry blames the Bin Laden tape.

 

[mojorisin]

Landslide in who's favor?

Landslide for Bush!

 

[mojorisin]

If you were depending on the debates to figure out the candidates positions, you missed the boat.

No, I didn’t miss anything. My point is, if Kerry actually ran on his record he would have gotten beat worse than he did.

 

[MGKrebs]

No, I didn’t miss anything. My point is, if Kerry actually ran on his record he would have gotten beat worse than he did.

Who knows. Maybe you're right. But MY point is that, if you remember, there were primaries, and 9 or 10 Dem candidates, and then several months before the conventions in which Kerry spent a lot of time laying out his plans and policies. He had a pretty good website that had lots of detail if anyone wanted to read up on the stuff.

By the time the debates rolled around, anybody who couldn't see the difference between the two candidates wasn't paying attention. They weren't going to choose their candidate based on some policy at that point. it was going to be something more like a gut feeling. Bush didn't lay out any detailed plans during the debates either. It was way too late for that kind of stuff.

 

[Steve]

[COLOR=]

Who knows. Maybe you're right. But MY point is that, if you remember, there were primaries, and 9 or 10 Dem candidates, and then several months before the conventions in which Kerry spent a lot of time laying out his plans and policies. He had a pretty good website that had lots of detail if anyone wanted to read up on the stuff.

By the time the debates rolled around, anybody who couldn't see the difference between the two candidates wasn't paying attention. They weren't going to choose their candidate based on some policy at that point. it was going to be something more like a gut feeling. Bush didn't lay out any detailed plans during the debates either. It was way too late for that kind of stuff.

I definitely followed all aspects of this camaign, Mr Muppet. Kerry had nothing on his web site as you describe above. And Kerry never told us how things would be better, in finite detail, under his hopeful presidency. Keep grabbing at straws, sir. Kerry had no basis to win; he failed himself first and foremost. Learn it, live it, hate it.

Blame Kerry for losing out, not us. The incumbent won again, and brought a greater majority in the Senate and House.

I would take that as a strong signal that my party was losing ground, unless I was as blind as you.