Why was Bush re-elected?

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: mxrider
I would say a lot of it had to do with the fact that in 2004 nobody knew what Kerry's stance on the issues was. I'm not sure John Kerry even knew

More nonsense, another victim of the TeeVee effect I suspect. Kerry's problem wasn't that he didn't have a stance, it was that his stances were too "nuanced" to fit into simple-minded sound bites. Unfortunately, once again thanks in part to television, too many Americans lack the attention span for understanding anything requiring more than 10 seconds of thought.

I'd argue that Kerry's stances lacked nuance at all. In fact, they lacked... standing.

To this day, I really don't know what Kerry's platform was, and that's worse than running on a bad one.

 

[CallMeJoe]

For Bush's victory in 2004, first credit Senator Kerry's ineptitude. Kerry did everything he could to lose the election, and still came damned close to winning the presidency anyway. "I actually voted for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it" was just one example of his self-inflicted wounds. Add in the failure to answer the Swift Boaters before they had redefined his VietNam service, the god awful sailboarding videos, his inability to sound like anything but a pompous, condescending ass...
Next, credit Rove's election machine. Mobilize the faithful, suppress the opposition. Sell W to the Bible Belt as a good, god-fearing Christian man who'll keep gays in their place, stop the plague of flag burners and make everybody pledge to "one nation under God". Sell him to everyone else as the only one who'll keep Muslim terr'rists from crashing airplanes into everybody's houses and making us all pray to Mecca, and you can eke out a 1% win.

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Bear in mind the Trent Lott situation in which he is from Mississippi who said some nice words about Strom Thurmond (who by the way was a racist and a hypocrite) at a Strom Thurmond appreciate banquet when dude was like 90 years old and ready to keel over at any minute and Trent Lott was labeled a racist for saying nice words to a very old man at that very old man's banquet.
He didn't even say anything racist, he just said that he thought that . By that same logic if I said I like Hitler's stache people could infer that I want to kill 7 million Jews.

It would have been different if Trent Lott had merely "said some nice words about Strom Thurmond". What he actually said:

When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We?re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either.

Remember that Strom Thurmond had run as a Dixiecrat, on a segregationist platform, opposing Harry Truman. President Truman had just desegregated the U.S. armed forces; Governor Thurmond was running a patently racist campaign against President Truman's civil rights reforms. Saying that President Thurmond could have prevented "all these problems over the years" carries a racist message - We could have kept all these coloreds in their place, with your help!

edit: minor correction for readability

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
It would have been different if Trent Lott had merely "said some nice words about Strom Thurmond". What he actually said:

When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We?re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either.

Remember that Strom Thurmond had run as a Dixiecrat, on a segregationist platform, opposing Harry Truman. President Truman had just desegregated the U.S. armed forces; Governor Thurmond was running a patently racist campaign against President Truman's civil rights reforms. Saying that President Thurmond could have prevented "all these problems over the years" carries a racist message - We could have kept all these coloreds in their place, with your help!

edit: minor correction for readability

A fair point, and its very easy to interpret what Trent Lott was saying to mean that "all of these problems" were referring to minority integration.

To be fair, that was probably the case but only Trent Lott really knows that. He could have meant poor public policy in relation to abortion, social security, the death penalty, taxes, social reform, or any of a number of other issues.

But Strom Thurmond was known to be a segregationist so when Trent Lott said that it was easily interpreted to mean "if he was elected we wouldn't have this problem of segregation."

Regardless of what Trent Lott really meant, if he didn't mean it as a racist remark then he should have been smart enough to choose his words better. Either way, he deserved what he got.


Either way though the Trent Lott case is at the very least arguable and no one really knows how we should interpret his words but Trent Lott.

But its hard to spin "this is the first time I've ever been proud of my country." That's pretty damn cut and dry.

 

[TerryMathews]

I think in 2004 the Dems might have won if Edwards was the top of the ticket, maybe if Kerry wasn't on it at all. Edwards has some charisma.

#1 reason why the Dems can't win until they straighten their act up? They keep trying to play ball like the Republicans and they're no good at it.

Look at the primary field. The Republicans got behind McCain months before Hillary/Obama was decided. Was it "undemocratic"? Sure. But look at those months that McCain got to consolidate his base of power while Hillary and Obama damaged each other's reputation. Now that McCain has to actually campaign again, look at all the crazy shit that's coming out, IE health care paying for birth control (McCain cringes).

You can't count on the Democrats to keep their word anymore either, which makes them no better than the Republicans. Look at what all they promised us in the 2006 Congressional elections, that they would get gas prices under control, end the Iraq war, impeach Bush, and end domestic spying. Last time I checked, none of that happened and they granted retroactive immunity to the telecom industry without a peep. Obama promised to fillibuster it, or at least support one and instead voted for it!

<Public perception>So you've got two parties, that do basically the same thing. One wants to ban gays and illegals and send you extra money every year. The other wants to raise taxes, let gays get married in your front yard, and make your kids learn Spanish in school.</Public perception>

Who do you vote for? I think we all know what has been happening. Will it continue? I guess we will see, won't we?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
I think in 2004 the Dems might have won if Edwards was the top of the ticket, maybe if Kerry wasn't on it at all. Edwards has some charisma.

#1 reason why the Dems can't win until they straighten their act up? They keep trying to play ball like the Republicans and they're no good at it.

Look at the primary field. The Republicans got behind McCain months before Hillary/Obama was decided. Was it "undemocratic"? Sure. But look at those months that McCain got to consolidate his base of power while Hillary and Obama damaged each other's reputation. Now that McCain has to actually campaign again, look at all the crazy shit that's coming out, IE health care paying for birth control (McCain cringes).

You can't count on the Democrats to keep their word anymore either, which makes them no better than the Republicans. Look at what all they promised us in the 2006 Congressional elections, that they would get gas prices under control, end the Iraq war, impeach Bush, and end domestic spying. Last time I checked, none of that happened and they granted retroactive immunity to the telecom industry without a peep. Obama promised to fillibuster it, or at least support one and instead voted for it!

<Public perception>So you've got two parties, that do basically the same thing. One wants to ban gays and illegals and send you extra money every year. The other wants to raise taxes, let gays get married in your front yard, and make your kids learn Spanish in school.</Public perception>

Who do you vote for? I think we all know what has been happening. Will it continue? I guess we will see, won't we?

I like the public perception part

 

[OutHouse]

<Public perception>So you've got two parties, that do basically the same thing. One wants to ban gays and illegals and send you extra money every year. The other wants to raise taxes, let gays get married in your front yard, and make your kids learn Spanish in school.</Public perception>

Best post in this thread.

 

[Ldir]

<Public peerception>So you've got two parties that basically do the same thing. One wants to rape the constitution, tap your phones, send your jobs to China, give your money to the rich, send the bill to you kids and then ship them off to die in an illegal war based on lies. The other wants to make sure everyone has good health care, clean up the environment and help the middle class.</Public perception>

Who do you vote for?

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: Ldir
<Public peerception>So you've got two parties that basically do the same thing. One wants to rape the constitution, tap your phones, send your jobs to China, give your money to the rich, send the bill to you kids and then ship them off to die in an illegal war based on lies. The other wants to make sure everyone has good health care, clean up the environment and help the middle class.</Public perception>

Who do you vote for?

If you can't tell does it really matter? It's a pretty unbiased post.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: Ldir
<Public peerception>So you've got two parties that basically do the same thing. One wants to rape the constitution, tap your phones, send your jobs to China, give your money to the rich, send the bill to you kids and then ship them off to die in an illegal war based on lies. The other wants to make sure everyone has good health care, clean up the environment and help the middle class.</Public perception>

Who do you vote for?

If you can't tell does it really matter? It's a pretty unbiased post.

Wait. Unbiased? I am confused. What was unbaised? Yours? No. Mine? No.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: Ldir
<Public peerception>So you've got two parties that basically do the same thing. One wants to rape the constitution, tap your phones, send your jobs to China, give your money to the rich, send the bill to you kids and then ship them off to die in an illegal war based on lies. The other wants to make sure everyone has good health care, clean up the environment and help the middle class.</Public perception>

Who do you vote for?

If you can't tell does it really matter? It's a pretty unbiased post.

Wait. Unbiased? I am confused. What was unbaised? Yours? No. Mine? No.

How was my post biased? I didn't say that Republicans were superior or more honest, as a matter of fact if you read my post again I pointed out that the Democrats biggest downfall is that they are as dishonest as the Republicans, and that they don't play dirty as well as the Republicans do.