← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Happy Hacker
Thread ID: 15536 | Posts: 31 | Started: 2004-11-03
2004-11-03 06:31 | User Profile
I've favored Bush over Kerry simply as the lessor of two evils.
There are only eight active members of the Supreme Court and the president for the next four years will probably get to appoint at least a couple of justices. Kerry has already admited to ultra-liberal litmus tests.
Most Americans believe that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and played a role in the 9/11 attack. Under that belief, Bush has not done so bad by attacking Iraq. For these deceived people to vote for Kerry would take a real leftward bent. At least most people still prefer a relatively conservative president.
If you walked into a room of Bush supporters, it would be a room full of white, Christian men and women. If you walked into a room of Kerry supporters, it would be a room full of sodomites, Jews, and blacks. And, when I hear some of these disgusting liberals trash Bush, often with lies and often for the best things about Bush, I wince at the thought of them being handed victory.
A big reason I've had for opposting Bush has been to not reward him for the evil deeds he has done under neocon influence. But, to punish Bush by ousting him would be to punish America with Kerry. Besides, Kerry would carry on in Israel's interest.
And, for those of you wishing for a total callapse of America so that we can rebuild, my "survival" homestead won't be done for several years, so I don't want America to callapse for a bit longer.
2004-11-03 07:04 | User Profile
I don't believe Bush was the lesser of two evils. I believe he is rather a different flavor of evil. America and Americans just became more hated in the world. Before this election it was easy to lay the war and other rogue behaviors at the feet of the government and/or neocons. Now it is laid squarely on the American people. Through this election, they have demonstrated that he's not acting in defiance of the will of the people, but rather, they support his policies.
The next four years ought to be VERY interesting.
2004-11-03 07:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]And, for those of you wishing for a total callapse of America so that we can rebuild, my "survival" homestead won't be done for several years, so I don't want America to callapse for a bit longer.[/QUOTE] I tended to agree Happy Hacker. In fact personally I even think Bush had a good reason for attacking Iraq. Saddam after all undoubtedly was trying to build WMD, even if he was incompetent in building them, and if he wasn't the only bad guy with WMD in the area.
For my lifetime probably, we are stuck with the Middle East in its present form in some way, including Israel and our dependence on oil there. We don't like the way the neocons exploit it for their own interests, but realistically we have limited options that will really imoprove things in our lifetimes. Similarly certain things about American life and society we aren't going to be able to change for the better. all hate how the neocons exploit the pubbies and especially Bush now, but its very hard to change things too much in a positive way.
That's just life. We've put together a good devil's advocate argument, and distanced ourselves from the GOP as much as posible I think. But we have to be realistic, especially considering our own limitations.
Buchanan was right I think. Let's let the neocons get us out of Iraq. They got us in it. If they mess the GOP and/or country up too much, then let's try to have a real alternative ready to go in 2008, and have a real plan for presenting it to America.
We'll I think have to split with the neo's, the standard GOP, and even posibly America itself in the future, but let's make sure the timing and situation is right before we burn our bridges, or allow them to be burned. Any Kerry type Democrat these days is a potential bridge burner for our whole country realistically.
Like you, I also am still working on my survivalist getaway. :lol:
2004-11-03 08:12 | User Profile
This thread is - so far - based on a false premise; that Bush won. Bush has [I][B]not[/B] [/I] won yet and it may be days or even weeks before we know for sure who took the election. Like HH, I voted for Bush because he is the lesser of two evils and I hope he wins, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it - not yet anyway!
2004-11-03 08:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]...... I wouldn't bet the farm on it (Bush winning)- not yet anyway![/QUOTE]I would.
2004-11-03 14:17 | User Profile
I don't agree with the reasoning here. Bush is hated for very good reasons, people. It doesn't take being a Leftist to feel that way. The end game for the Neocons and their puppet-in-chief Bush is a New World Zionist Order, period. They're NOT planning for any aftermath involving YOU.
2004-11-03 14:40 | User Profile
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
2004-11-03 14:57 | User Profile
Some points:
I didn't vote for Bush.
I don't believe Saddam was trying to build WMDs.
Bush won the election, now the Kerry camp in typical Democrat slime style is trying to undermine the perceived legitimacy of that victory. In Ohio, Bush leads 2,794,346 to 2,658,125 with 100% of the prencincts counted. It's not reasonable that the uncounted absentee and the new provisional ballots (now, registering to vote is too much to ask of voters) could tip that scale the other direction. Should these uncounted ballots go toward Kerry more than 2:1, as it would take, I'd be sure someone has been busy since Tuesday making up new ballots.
The fact that Kerry has not conceded after certain loss is another reason why it is better than Bush has won.
2004-11-03 16:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I don't agree with the reasoning here. Bush is hated for very good reasons, people. It doesn't take being a Leftist to feel that way. The end game for the Neocons and their puppet-in-chief Bush is a New World Zionist Order, period. They're NOT planning for any aftermath involving YOU.[/QUOTE]Not disputing any of that. But again, how was Kerry going to be any different? Remember the neocons made a seemless switch from Bush Sr. to Clinton, who was controlled by the neocons and their allies much more strongly than Dubbya is actually. How soon we can forget.
2004-11-03 16:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Bush won the election, now the Kerry camp in typical Democrat slime style is trying to undermine the perceived legitimacy of that victory. In Ohio,[/QUOTE]
Kerry has just conceded. Congratulations to Kerry for being better than some other Democrats at election time. I always thought Kerry had more integrity than say Clinton or Gore but when it looked liked like the Kerry team was going refuse to concede in the face of clear defeat, I started rethinking my opionion of Kerry. Actually, Kerry should have conceded last night.
2004-11-03 16:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I don't agree with the reasoning here. Bush is hated for very good reasons, people. It doesn't take being a Leftist to feel that way. The end game for the Neocons and their puppet-in-chief Bush is a New World Zionist Order, period. They're NOT planning for any aftermath involving YOU.[/QUOTE]
Yes, Bush is hated for very good reasons. But, consider that most people believe Bush's lies about Iraq. Is it not a better reflection on the American people that they believed his lies and voted for him rather than believed his lies and voted for Kerry? "Yeah, Bush is defending America, but he isn't making the government pay for abortions, so I'm voting for Kerry."
Of course, it would be best if people recognized Bush for the neocon puppet that he is.
2004-11-03 17:33 | User Profile
Late last night I felt a certainty that Bush would win Ohio and thus the election. I voted third party as usual but I am glad Bush beat Kerry. Yes, it will isolate America further but in some ways that may be a good thing since it will make American interventionism less acceptable. I have felt for a long time that Bush snubbing the UN and deep-sixing our allies may be better for the world in the long run. Some Democrats like Wes Clark came straight out and said that we needed allies so that we could increase our ability to wage war.
Culturally the Democrats keep putting out candidates who have no ability to connect with the working classes. Gore and Lieberman ran a snooty campaign aimed at liberals and yuppies. Their loss in 2000 should have been the cause of major soul-searching within the Democratic Party. Instead the Democrats blamed Nader, the Supreme Court, Butterfly Ballots.... etc. Because that soul-searching did not happen the democrats ran another elitist commie this time around. I know i'm generalizing a bit here, but I'm convinced the democrats are going to have to rethink their strategy mainly because they didn't do it four years ago. Instead of wallowing in their victim mentality, and calling Bush a "cowboy" like that's a bad thing, they need to realize that the cowboy mentality built a lot of this country and needs to be acknowledged.
2004-11-03 18:14 | User Profile
Those 11 anti-fag ballot initiatives were a big deal, I think.
They got evangelicals to the polls in droves in places like Ohio. I think that a lot of them weren't particularly inspired by Bush, but once they got into the booth to vote down sodomite "marriage" they pulled the lever for Bush.
Those state court cases (Mass especially) that instituted fag marriage backfired on the liberals big time.
How utterly fascinating. The GOP pulled this one out of a hat, and the Rats handed it to them.
The Rats will have to do some major soul searching.
Unfortunately for us and the world, the Pubbies will draw all the wrong lessons from this, such as immigration doesn't count, and the war in Iraq was a good thing.
Oh well. Worse is better.
2004-11-03 18:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Kerry has just conceded. Congratulations to Kerry for being better than some other Democrats at election time. I always thought Kerry had more integrity than say Clinton or Gore but when it looked liked like the Kerry team was going refuse to concede in the face of clear defeat, I started rethinking my opionion of Kerry. Actually, Kerry should have conceded last night.[/QUOTE]It didn't really seem clear last night, especially with all the late voting lines in black areas, etc. Remember Gore was ready to concede, then he got a big influx of votes from South Florida.
The Democrats had built a huge attack team ready to pounce. You give them even a trace of blood, and they start frothing at the mouth. And situationally Ohio was so much like Florida in 2000 there was no way they were going to accept defeat as long as there was a remote chance.
If Kerry had conceded and there'd been some late developments his guys would have crucified him. You've got to feel for him anyway. Democrats don't give losing Prez candidates the time of day. His only saving grace is he's got his Senate seat to go back to.
2004-11-03 21:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]It didn't really seem clear last night, especially with all the late voting lines in black areas, etc. Remember Gore was ready to concede, then he got a big influx of votes from South Florida.
When I went to bed, every precinct was reporting 100% and Bush had well over 100,000 vote lead. The only reason the networks didn't call it for Bush yesturday was because the Democrats insisted, absurdly, that they could still win.
2004-11-03 21:14 | User Profile
Any bets on whether Bush will stand up to Sharon on settlements or other issues with the Palestinians now that he's secured his second term?
2004-11-03 21:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Those 11 anti-fag ballot initiatives were a big deal, I think.
They got evangelicals to the polls in droves in places like Ohio. I think that a lot of them weren't particularly inspired by Bush, but once they got into the booth to vote down sodomite "marriage" they pulled the lever for Bush.
Those state court cases (Mass especially) that instituted fag marriage backfired on the liberals big time.
How utterly fascinating. The GOP pulled this one out of a hat, and the Rats handed it to them.
The Rats will have to do some major soul searching.
Unfortunately for us and the world, the Pubbies will draw all the wrong lessons from this, such as immigration doesn't count, and the war in Iraq was a good thing.
Oh well. Worse is better.[/QUOTE]
You know, Walter, that's probably the most insightful commentary I've seen yet on what got evangelicals out to the polls in battleground states and an angle that I had not at all considered. I wonder if Karl Rove jotted this technique down in his strategy book for future reference.
2004-11-03 22:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]When I went to bed, every precinct was reporting 100% and Bush had well over 100,000 vote lead. The only reason the networks didn't call it for Bush yesturday was because the Democrats insisted, absurdly, that they could still win.[/QUOTE] Well my take was that everyone was obviously gunshy to the point of psychosis from Florida. It would have been a mark of fortitude for Kerry to concede early in the morning. But the legacy from Florida is you don't make decisions like this late at night when you're tired, before you've given your lawyers time to review things.
Ohio remember was such a surprise, what with the early exit polls predicting a four point victory. The Demo's were psychologically already dug in for the fight there, and it really shocked everyone when the vote count started to give Bush a solid if small percentage-wise lead.
Politics is very scripted now, and politicians are always warned not to make seat-of-the pants decisions or off-the-cuff remarks. Kerry just reflected this.
2004-11-03 22:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Any bets on whether Bush will stand up to Sharon on settlements or other issues with the Palestinians now that he's secured his second term?[/QUOTE]
Sharon orders and Bush obeys.
Like Kerry's kid said, the Jews have to much power in the USA.
2004-11-03 23:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Sharon orders and Bush obeys.
Like Kerry's kid said, the Jews have to much power in the USA.[/QUOTE]
Got a link to that?
2004-11-03 23:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Got a link to that?[/QUOTE]
[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15513]OD - Kerry's Stepson Says Jews Have Too Much Power in the USA[/URL]
2004-11-04 00:21 | User Profile
National Jewish Demoratic Council
[QUOTE=Centinel]Any bets on whether Bush will stand up to Sharon on settlements or other issues with the Palestinians now that he's secured his second term?[/QUOTE]
Israel and the Middle East: Where do the candidates really stand?
John Kerry
* John Kerry has a "100 percent pro-Israel voting record in the Senate."1
* John Kerry has said "We should never pressure Israel;"2 he has called Arafat "an outlaw to the peace process;"3 and he opposes any Palestinian "right of return" to Israel.4
* John Kerry has strongly supported Israelââ¬â¢s security fence, calling it "a fence necessary to the security of Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate."6
* John Kerry has blasted anti-Semitic comments from Saudi leaders,9 and said he will "end this sweetheart relationship with a bunch of Arab countries that still allows money to move to Hamas, Hezballah and the Al Aqsa Brigade."10
George W. Bush
* In remarks echoed in September, 2004 before the United Nations, George W. Bush said in November, 2003 that "Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences."5
* George W. Bush has repeatedly opposed and criticized the security fence through early 2004,7 and the Bush administration has cut Israelââ¬â¢s loan guarantees due to the fence.8
* George W. Bush says that "Saudi Arabia is our friend,"11 and he has "failed to condemn" anti-Semitic statements from Saudi leaders.12
For more information on where the candidates stand on Israel, please see "Israel and Terrorism."
[url]http://www.njdc.org/israel/[/url]
2004-11-04 01:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]National Jewish Demoratic Council
Israel and the Middle East: Where do the candidates really stand?
John Kerry
* John Kerry has a "100 percent pro-Israel voting record in the Senate."1
* John Kerry has said "We should never pressure Israel;"2 he has called Arafat "an outlaw to the peace process;"3 and he opposes any Palestinian "right of return" to Israel.4
* John Kerry has strongly supported Israelââ¬â¢s security fence, calling it "a fence necessary to the security of Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate."6
* John Kerry has blasted anti-Semitic comments from Saudi leaders,9 and said he will "end this sweetheart relationship with a bunch of Arab countries that still allows money to move to Hamas, Hezballah and the Al Aqsa Brigade."10
George W. Bush
* In remarks echoed in September, 2004 before the United Nations, George W. Bush said in November, 2003 that "Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences."5
* George W. Bush has repeatedly opposed and criticized the security fence through early 2004,7 and the Bush administration has cut Israelââ¬â¢s loan guarantees due to the fence.8
* George W. Bush says that "Saudi Arabia is our friend,"11 and he has "failed to condemn" anti-Semitic statements from Saudi leaders.12
For more information on where the candidates stand on Israel, please see "Israel and Terrorism."
[url]http://www.njdc.org/israel/[/url][/QUOTE]
Hey trolling moron, Your Tough-on-Israel Fuerher Georg Busch happened to sign this little ditty into permanent law:
[B]AJC Welcomes Anti-Semitism Awareness Act[/B]
October 14, 2004 - New York ââ¬â The American Jewish Committee today praised the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act as a welcome measure in the fight against anti-Semitism and a worthy addition to the mission of the U.S. State Department.
AJC also noted the remarkable work of Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), the only Holocaust survivor in the House, who championed the bill and rallied support for it, despite stiff resistance from the State Department.
"The Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act recognizes that anti-Semitism is a unique and ancient phenomenon that requires the scrutiny and monitoring of a designated office," said E. Robert Goodkind, AJC president.
The bill, which has passed the Senate and the House of Representatives, requires the State Department to appoint a special commissioner to track anti-Semitism around the world and compile an annual report on the topic. [COLOR=DarkRed]President Bush is expected to sign it into law shortly[/COLOR].
"There presently exists an escalating and virulent anti-Semitism, particularly in Western Europe and the Middle East. This new initiative presents an opportunity to dissect and endeavor to understand the roots of this resurgence so we can best fight against it," Goodkind added.
Among some 100 prominent Americans calling on Secretary of State Colin Powell to create the office called for in the law, was Ambassador Richard Schifter, chairman of AJC's International Relations Commission.
[url]http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/PressReleases.asp?did=1379[/url]
2004-11-04 07:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]You know, Walter, that's probably the most insightful commentary I've seen yet on what got evangelicals out to the polls in battleground states and an angle that I had not at all considered. I wonder if Karl Rove jotted this technique down in his strategy book for future reference.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, C. I imagine that Karl Rove saw that one coming, and worked diligently to get those measures on state ballots.
On the other issue, I don't think Shrub will stand up to Sharon for the time being.
I think that the Bush Crime Family learned its lesson when Big Bush pulled that in 1991. If there was any doubt about it, Dole's loss in 1996 came on the tails of his tough-sounding rhetoric on Izzy intransigence.
The Houston oil boys around the big oil companies and oil services companies (like Halliburton) have other fish to fry for the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, I don't think that there's any love lost at all between the WASP oilmen from Houston and the neocons. They all bloody hate each other, but for now they need each other, and so it will continue. Plus, I think that MOSSAD has the goods on the Bush family about something, and there's an element of blackmail at work here. I don't know what it is obviously, but I'll bet it has something to do with Big Bush's treasonous deal with the Iranian Mullahs in the Contra scandal of the early 1980's. That's specualtion, of course, but we do know that the Izzies were up to their necks in that, and they well might have some damning evidence.
I do believe that as this war moves forward and the stresses pile on, Shrub may be forced to hedge his bets and show the world that he can stand up to Israel. Nailing the latest Pentagon spies may be the first volley fired.
The main point is that the war adds stresses to everything, including the current political structure. Who knows along which lines it will break? But I think we can see it cracking even now.
Walter
2004-11-04 08:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]You know, Walter, that's probably the most insightful commentary I've seen yet on what got evangelicals out to the polls in battleground states and an angle that I had not at all considered. I wonder if Karl Rove jotted this technique down in his strategy book for future reference.[/QUOTE]
Check [URL=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/04/GAYVOTE.TMP]this [/URL] out.
Also [URL=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1270076/posts]this[/URL].
2004-11-04 14:54 | User Profile
[COLOR=Blue] - "Any bets on whether Bush will stand up to Sharon on settlements or other issues with the Palestinians now that he's secured his second term?"[/COLOR]
Blunt question: why should we care about what Sharon is doing to Muslim Palestinians?
Petr
2004-11-04 15:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Blue] - "Any bets on whether Bush will stand up to Sharon on settlements or other issues with the Palestinians now that he's secured his second term?"[/COLOR]
Blunt question: why should we care about what Sharon is doing to Muslim Palestinians?
Petr[/QUOTE]1. Because he's also doing it of course to the Christian Palestenians - for starters.
I'm not really sure where you're coming from.
2004-11-04 16:03 | User Profile
[I]I'll let this guy articulate for me how I feel about this election. So, maybe I'm a libertarian instead of a paleo, but I'm not happy that George Bush won re election.[/I]
[B]A Sad Day for Liberty[/B] by Anthony Gregory
Although John Kerry offered very little hope to the libertarian in the world of policy proposals, the reelection of George W. Bush is indeed a sad event for liberty.
We now know that, regardless of whether he "stole" the election in 2000, the electoral and popular majority came out in support of Bush. He didnââ¬â¢t steal this one.
Why did Americans vote for him? According to polls, leading reasons for supporting Bush were "moral values," the economy, and terrorism.
Give me a break.
I guess "moral values" comprises the occasional statement that "marriage is sacred" or that "character and human dignity" are good. No matter how many innocent people a Republican kills or lies he tells, conservatives will support him as long as he "defends marriage" ââ¬â even if he endorses civil unions and has the same outlook on the issue as his opponent! Maybe the federal marriage amendment idea helped. Allegedly, anything that further nationalizes the country in the name of family values is good for America.
Even though the economy is not doing so well ââ¬â and the government shouldnââ¬â¢t be charged with running the economy in the first place ââ¬â many Americans voted for Bush as if heââ¬â¢s the man putting people to work and producing all the countryââ¬â¢s goods and services. Although the War on Terror has only made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, the voters feel so protected by the president that they rushed to the polls in his support. Thatââ¬â¢ll show bin Laden! Vote for the guy who killed thousands in Iraq and radicalized the most secular Arab region in the Middle East!
The meaning of Bushââ¬â¢s reelection cuts much deeper than any of these particular issues. It means that a majority of the electorate ââ¬â including almost all voters who consider themselves Republicans or conservatives ââ¬â have more apprehension about a vague alternative than about four more years of what we have seen.
We have seen the growth of government at a mind-numbing velocity. We have seen the creation of a new federal bureaucracy, new spying powers, two disastrous wars, a torture scandal, the largest expansion of welfare entitlements since the Great Society, and a long list of many other federal abominations, almost any of which make Clintonââ¬â¢s years look like a libertarian dream and a paragon of virtue.
Whatever one might think about "voting to keep Kerry out of the White House," the American people (or at least a plurality of those eligible voters who chose to participate) effectively granted Bush another four years to do much of the same.
The Republicans also gained in the legislature. This would have been tolerable and even desirable if Kerry had won. But the Republicans will take this election as a mandate for every government program, war, police-state policy and spending increase they have their hearts set on; this election was a referendum: do Americans think the country is going in the right direction? Fifty-eight million people said yes. The Republicans will continue to expand the corporate-socialist state and wage wars, all in the name of free markets and peace. We have another four years of having to explain not only the faults of the government, but also how none of Bushââ¬â¢s governance, despite the lying Republican rhetoric, has anything whatsoever to do with free enterprise and limited government.
Aside from the Republicans, another group also deserves blame: the Democrats.
What were you guys thinking? Did you really think that by nominating some Bush Liteâ⢠who wrote parts of the Patriot Act, voted for Gulf War II, and did everything he could during the election to alienate classic conservatives as well as antiwar leftists, youââ¬â¢d beat the current president? I know so many people who would have voted for Howard Dean, who was a little more reasonable on spending and gun control and much more unambiguously opposed to the Iraq War. I know so many conservatives whose main problem with Kerry was that he was hardly even "Anybody but Bush."
The Democrats deserved to lose this one, although Bush deserved to lose even more.
As for the libertarians who supported this madman, I wonder something. Whatââ¬â¢s so libertarian about supporting the least libertarian president in a quarter of a century?
There are two kinds of people who consider themselves libertarians: those who care more about aesthetics, rhetoric and façade, and those who care more about freedom and the growth of government. It took me until this election to realize something: I really do long for the days of Bill Clinton. And I do believe that those who think that sounds crazy simply arenââ¬â¢t paying attention.
For the first time, I also think that the red states might be loonier than the blue. Now, I might be wrong about this, and Iââ¬â¢m sure one day Iââ¬â¢ll change my mind again, but Iââ¬â¢m actually thinking that California secession wouldnââ¬â¢t be so bad. Unfortunately, the Republicans, having duped the red states, including the South, into supporting the nationalist agenda of the Party of Lincoln, will never let California go any more than they let South Carolina go 144 years ago.
George W. Bush is going to be a two-term president. Thatââ¬â¢s unbelievable. I used to wonder how Americans could reelect Franklin Roosevelt after the New Deal, or Richard Nixon after his continuing of the Great Society and the Vietnam War, or Ronald Reagan after increasing government when he said he wouldnââ¬â¢t, or Bill Clinton after Waco. Now I know.
Well, if Bush invades Iran, continues with his healthcare socialism, starts rounding up dissenters and runs this country into depression with his inflationary spending, I guess the Republican voters can at least be happy that they kept the slimy Democrats out of the White House.
Do I think Kerry would have been better? Not necessarily. He could have conceivably been worse. But weââ¬â¢ll never know for sure. What we do know is that the Republicans have it all ââ¬â Congress, the Senate, the White House, and the judiciary. Letââ¬â¢s see how much liberty we get back. Letââ¬â¢s see how much peace and security we get. I would be willing to bet that the growth of government will only accelerate now, and that we have a snowballââ¬â¢s chance in hell of seeing new judges that "obey the Constitution." This election has only proven to the Republicans that they can easily win elections and maintain their base constituency no matter how much they lie to us, destroy the Bill of Rights and wage war on the American Dream.
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory41.html[/url]
2004-11-04 16:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]You know, Walter, that's probably the most insightful commentary I've seen yet on what got evangelicals out to the polls in battleground states and an angle that I had not at all considered. I wonder if Karl Rove jotted this technique down in his strategy book for future reference.[/QUOTE]
I was watching MSNBC on election night and that was Pat Buchanan's main point. He said Karl Rove spent months hammering away on Kerry and the Dems on gay marriage throughout the Lutheran mid-west and Bible-belt South.
I agree with Pat and Walter, it was a huge factor in this election.
2004-11-04 16:33 | User Profile
[B]Gore Jewish voters choose Bush[/B]
The American Jewish Committee, in a tiny sampling of roughly 200 Jewish voters in five battleground states, found roughly 12 to 13 percent of Jews who voted for Al Gore in 2000 switched parties and cast their vote for President George W. Bush on Tuesday.
"From our exit sampling, very strong support for Kerry. But strikingly, a fairly significant number of Jews switching from Gore in 2000 to Bush, somewhere in the order of 12-13%," said David Harris, AJC's executive director, who examined data, which he stressed was not scientific.
Bush won 19% and Gore 80% of the Jewish vote in 2000, according to exit polling. An AJC survey of American Jewish voters in September found 69% would support Kerry and 24% Bush. AJC's Tuesday results suggested slightly stronger gains for Bush in the community.
[COLOR=Red]Harris said that nearly all voters who switched from Gore to Bush "identified either Israel or terrorism (and) 9/11 as the first reason for their decision."[/COLOR]
It was not clear if those gains in the Jewish community would be enough to propel Bush to victory.
Overall turnout was extremely high on Tuesday and pundits speculated the large number of new voters would, overall, benefit Kerry. Also, whereas a percentage of Jews in the battleground states are voting for Bush because of his record on Israel or in fighting terrorism, Arab Americans ââ¬â popular in the same key battleground states ââ¬â have moved decidedly away from Bush, perhaps canceling out the gains.
Harris was reluctant to give overall tallies of how Jews polled in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin voted.
"Our principle aim was not numbers per say, it was Jewish voter motivation," he said. Larger exit voter surveys will provide that figure, he noted, "but they won't tell us what we want to know, which is why they voted the way they did and why they switched if they did."
While those who voted for Bush cited Israel and the war on terrorism as key motivating factors, the Kerry voter "is usually driven by domestic issues or it's based on personal qualities defined mostly by their dislike of President Bush," Harris said.
The surveys were sent to AJC members in the five battleground states via email. The email urged recipients to forward the survey to other Jews in their state.
[COLOR=Red]AJC also separately polled 370 Russian Jews at precincts in New York and Philadelphia. Harris said the results were the "mirror image in the opposite direction" of the AJC's September poll. At least 75% said they were voting for Bush, citing his Israel stance and his strong leadership in the war on terrorism.[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1099371832754[/url]
2004-11-04 18:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead][B]Gore Jewish voters choose Bush[/B]
The American Jewish Committee, in a tiny sampling of roughly 200 Jewish voters in five battleground states, found roughly 12 to 13 percent of Jews who voted for Al Gore in 2000 switched parties and cast their vote for President George W. Bush on Tuesday.
CNN reports Bush won 25% of the Jewish vote, up from 19% in 2000. I don't think you could find another demographic that shifted so much from 2000. Bush gained in virtually every demographic group, except maybe Muslims and militant atheists.