[Previous entry: "The capitolistic utopia for Iraq"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "I hate america"]

11/05/2004: "BUSH WINS! BUSH WINS! How to mend the divide in America"

Bush Wins by more votes than any president in our history. He is elected by over 54% of the American people. In fact, it is even greater when you consider the following.

Senator Kerry said that the president was going to reinstate the military draft. For the 54% of 18-24 year olds who voted for him, one has to wonder how this blatant lie assisted him in his cause. Since the 18-24 year olds represented 17% of the electorate, this lie was easily responsible for 3% of Kerrys vote total. Had the main stream press done their job, it is certainly safe to reduce his total by the 3% so now the total is Bush 57% Kerry 43%

Senator Kerry went around the nation informing African Americans that Bush was going to prevent them from attending college. Another blatant lie. Since Blacks are traditionally more democratic we cannot use the logic above. Let look at the exit poll results. Blacks went 88% for John Kerry. But two weeks before the election a poll came out saying that Bush was getting 18% of the black vote. It is safe to say that this lie cost Bush 7% of the black vote. Since Blacks represent 11% of the electorate, then we can add another percentage point for George Bush. Total is Bush 58% Kerry 43%

The New York Times printed a false story that Bush had lost track of high explosives in Iraq. Senator Kerry was quick to jump on this story and use it for all that it was worth. Again, the bias of the media especially the plan to break the story on Sunday is amazing. This coordinated effort between the Kerry Campaign and the main stream media provided many votes for Kerry. 15% of the people said that Iraq was the major issue in the campaign and 73% of these people voted for Kerry, it is safe to say that almost 11% of the 15% voted for Kerry. But how to weight this and the other blatantly bias reporting on Iraq. Being generous, just over one half would have not supported Kerry had the progress been equally reported or had Kerry's indecisiveness been adequately reported. Total is Bush 64% Kerry 37%.

The propaganda film Fahrenheit 911 was trumpeted by not only political leaders but also by the main stream press. It was given the false status of a documentary. The promotion of this film and the pathetic job by the main stream media of reporting the actual facts was another source of major votes for John Kerry. This stream of lies easily provided another 5% points for John Kerry. Total is Bush 69% Kerry 32%.

I will not even go into the other items that were promoted by the Democrats and not checked by the main stream media. For example, the 911 commission, the Kitty Kelly book (3 days on Today), Ignoring the Swift Boat Vets book, Ignoring John Kerry's the new soldier, Woodwards book, Howard Dean's book, The Richard Clark book, and on, and on...

But now, lets look at the adjusted numbers, Bush has almost 70% of the vote. A mandate for sure. How can we heal the division? Easy, Democrats (the losers) can move from the left to the center and then see where they can support the Bush (winner) agenda. They are of course free to obstruct but that will only cost them another 4 senate seats and another 6 house seats in two years. They will be totally irrelevant.

Mike

Replies: 5 Comments

Mike, just as expected you continue to spew b/s and part of me expected it and part of me will be on hand to see how all of the promises are "explained away" as your 70% of the vote lie.... this is no mandate... it's a lie against our neighbors who are gay or different from you and you know it... the negativism, the lies... when those red states begin to realize that all the promises made will be just that... promises made and when he is unable to "bring about our last days... you will be left to wonder how someone could have pulled the wool over the eyes of america" here's the rebuttle President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda. Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism. This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback. I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality. Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes. So what should the Democrats do? One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition. Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states. But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base. Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage. Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base. In fact, they have made good strides, showing much more unity and intensity than anyone thought possible a year ago. But for the lingering aura of 9/11, they would have won. What they need to do now is develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year. Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will. It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.

Walt said @ 11/06/2004 05:57 AM CST

That is perfect! Keep up the fight. I will enjoy it if the democrats push forward with their hard left agenda. You know Zel Miller the ostracized voice in the Democratic Party said in his op-ed that the south has gone from 17 democratic senators in 1992 to 5 today. What does this say? It says that the Democratic Party is out of touch with main stream America. Until they centralized their view, they will continue to lose. More and more democrats are coming the realization that the party has left them and stands for nothing but the fringe socialist left and their defeated and failed policies. I say great! In an election or two we will have the filibuster proof majority and then we will reduce the size and intrusiveness of government. There was a valid reason that the founders thought that government was a "necessary evil". It tends to grow and become overwhelming.

Mike said @ 11/06/2004 12:03 PM CST

Last time I checked it was your administration that was growing the government... and If Zell Miller is the best you've got... your more out of touch that I thought.... I'm really going to enjoy watching the excuses... you know they have already begun... I understand one of the iraqi commanders who was briefed on the latest buildup is missing.. while saudi arabia's clerics have openly asked insurgents to continue to fight against american troops.... keep your head in the sand...

Walt said @ 11/06/2004 07:22 PM CST

Democratic Left agenda? I think not. Bill Clinton 1) cut capitol gains taxes 2) passed far reaching welfare reform laws 3) limited access to abortion 4) signed a draconian anti-terrorism bill 5) increased sentences for non-violent drug offenders 6) bombed another country without UN support There is so much more. This is hardly a liberal agenda. What the democrats need is boldness. They need to reconnect with labor. They need to go into the deep south and other red states and ask Why do you vote against your economic self interests? How does the private behaviour of other people affect your marriage? Shouldn't you care less who people sleep with and more about if you have a job when you wake up? How moral is it to mislead a country into war, killing over a thousand of our soldiers, maming thousands of our soldiers, and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians? Have you read Jesus' Sermon on the Mount?

bob said @ 11/12/2004 07:51 PM CST

Sliding Scale of Moral Values Is All in the Phrasing By Charles Babington and Brian Faler Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page A05 Much has been made of presidential exit polls indicating that voters cared more about "moral values" than Iraq, terrorism or other issues. Numerous pundits have concluded that Democrats badly miscalculated President Bush's strengths and weaknesses and that the party is terribly out of touch with the heartland. Well, not so fast. Voters' responses, it turns out, vary dramatically depending on how the question is asked. If pollsters let voters name anything they choose as the "most important factor" in their decision -- rather than giving them a list to pick from -- Iraq easily outdistances moral values. A close third is the economy and jobs. When the Pew Research Center polled 1,209 voters after the Nov. 2 election, it used both methods to ask what was "the most important factor" in choosing between Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). Some sampled by Pew were given the same options that exit pollsters gave voters on Election Day. Of these, Pew found, 27 percent listed "moral values" as most important, 22 percent said "Iraq," 21 percent chose "economy and jobs," and 14 percent said "terrorism." The Nov. 2 exit poll results were 22 percent "moral values," 20 percent "economy and jobs," 19 percent "terrorism," and 15 percent "Iraq." But when Pew's post-election pollsters let voters offer any answer, results were starkly different: 25 percent cited Iraq, 14 percent moral values, 12 percent economy and jobs, and 9 percent terrorism. The biggest category, at 31 percent, was "other," which included "honesty," dislike or like of Bush or Kerry, and so on. If Iraq and terrorism are combined as one issue -- which is how the Bush campaign portrayed them -- it easily tops the list under either method of framing the question (36 percent and 34 percent, respectively). Keep on the Sunny Side Speaking of polls, voters seem to be patting themselves on the back. The University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey found that, after Nov. 2, Americans are more optimistic about the nation's direction. Forty-seven percent said the country is "generally going in the right direction," compared with 40 percent in pre-election polls. After the election, 46 percent said "things are seriously off on the wrong track," compared with 53 percent before the vote. They Demand a Recount A couple of minor-party presidential candidates hope to have a major impact on the ongoing vote count in Ohio. Green Party nominee David Cobb and Libertarian Michael Badnarik said last week that they want a recount of the state's presidential vote -- and are willing to pay to force it. Ohio law allows candidates to demand a recount, provided they pay the cost, estimated at $113,000 for all precincts. The political odd couple is off to a fast fundraising start for the effort. The Cobb campaign said Friday that it had raised $71,000, while the Badnarik camp had no estimate of its fundraising. Both campaigns said they want to ensure the Ohio tally's accuracy. "Unless you conduct an audit, essentially you don't know what problems there are," Cobb spokesman Blair Bobier said. Their effort comes as the Internet burbles with rumors of voter fraud in Ohio and elsewhere. Bush won the critical battleground state by about 136,000 votes in unofficial returns. The two minor candidates were little more than afterthoughts during the campaign. Cobb wasn't on the Ohio ballot but received 24 write-in votes. Badnarik made the ballot and received about 14,300 votes. The Kerry campaign, which still has volunteer lawyers monitoring vote tallies in nearly every Ohio county, expressed no opinion on the Cobb-Badnarik campaign. "We can't prevent anybody else from asking for a recount," said Dan Hoffheimer, its state legal counsel. No Democratic group, he said, is "behind any effort to have a recount." Tough Crowd in Nevada As residents of a coveted presidential battleground state, Nevadans had plenty of reason to vote Nov. 2. Among those who turned out were 3,600 who cast ballots for -- drum roll, please -- none of the above, an option required by Nevada law. They accounted for less than half of 1 percent of all state voters. Nonetheless, NOTA outpolled Libertarian Michael Badnarik, the Green Party's David Cobb and Constitution Party nominee Michael Peroutka. Independent Ralph Nader avoided similar humiliation, beating no one by 1,100 votes. In Search of a New Leader Democrats, still reeling from the election, are weighing more than a dozen possible contenders to succeed Terry McAuliffe as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Several party activists said Friday that no one has emerged as a front-runner. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack might be a strong candidate because a broad cross-section of party activists likes him (or doesn't strongly dislike him, which can be just as important), some party loyalists said. Others said to be testing the waters include former New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen, political adviser Harold Ickes, former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk and former Georgia governor Roy Barnes. Party insiders said it was unclear whether Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential contender, might be interested. Those who have ruled themselves out include Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign.

Here's the real story behind the "Moral Values" said @ 11/15/2004 07:46 PM CST