Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-13 21:36:35 +0000
It makes victory so much better knowing you wanted to talk about issues and policy instead of mudslinging and character destruction. Like being a Red Sox fan: where victory so much sweeter knowing you ball team is not a bunch of mercinaries on steriods destroying the game....
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-13 22:11:25 +0000
you guys slapping each other high fives is pretty funny
the Red Sox analogy is funny too.
Say the Red Sox win the World Series: Then what? Are you right ? Do you feel vindicated? Or does some of the prestige of being part of the misunderstood wear off?
We've been through this already: this guy's argument is that the Democrats are nicer and that more people like nice guys, but then the bad apple republicans come and ruin the party for everyone. and then people get upset and say "Karl Rove" a lot.
It sounds to me these people are letting the election happen to them. A poor craftsman always blames his tools and the circumstances. Forget it. Go out there and shake things up.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-13 23:44:34 +0000
Should the carpenter burn down people's homes to get more work?
Again, I will not "shake things up." I want to talk about facts and issues.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-13 23:50:16 +0000
This got me pretty worked up.
If you want an amoral society where we spend our time trying to defame people and destroy the line between fact and fiction, I suppose I can't stop you. But please don't talk about morals or God forbid "family values." You have chosen the mud.
I will not. I do believe in ethics and rules for that matter. Others may not, and I guess I can't change that. These are things we get from nature and nuture, not web pages.
When the Red Sox win the World Series, I will feel accomplishment and perhaps avenged, yes. It is harder to win without steroids or a blank checkbook (or talking about policy and not smearing mud), but the win does feel better. For me anyway.
[quote:fac1c0b904]does some of the prestige of being part of the misunderstood wear off?[/quote:fac1c0b904]
No, I don't understand the people who root for the Yankees, Barry Bonds, the cheaters, and the mudslingers. I find myself to be fairly understandable. (Is that a word?)
I think we can accomplish more talking about tort reform and balancing the deficit, than having to defend ourselves constantly. But this the genius of the GOP's "bad apples". Make sure the voters are surrounded by a gray media cloud: not recognizing that their tax burden has gone up, civil liberties have been taken, and safety (physical and fiscal) has been compromised.
Is lying cheating? I don't know. In golf it is. In baseball, if you are not hit by the pitch, but the umpire thought you were, you are supposed to tell him. Karim Garcia (ex-Yankee) did not do this last year.
Again I ask: Should the carpenter burn homes down to get more work?
Call me sentimental, but I couldn't.
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-14 06:23:30 +0000
[quote:0fe9637723="rladew"]you guys slapping each other high fives is pretty funny[/quote:0fe9637723]
Where was the high-five? Lost me on that one. Looks like Dawn was disagreeing with me, not a ringing endorsement.
[quote:0fe9637723="rladew"]We've been through this already: this guy's argument is that the Democrats are nicer and that more people like nice guys, but then the bad apple republicans come and ruin the party for everyone. and then people get upset and say "Karl Rove" a lot.[/quote:0fe9637723]
Did you read the article? His argument is that people will be ingrained with the "Kerry is a flip-floppper and can't be trusted with national security" on Nov. 2nd. This is the central Republican campaign theme of 2004. There is no positive record for Bush to run on, so they resort to smears and rumors.
Nevermind that Bush has failed on:
national security
the Iraq War
the budget
the economy
personal liberty
gay rights
stem cell research
...I'll also note that Bush doesn't fail against classic liberal criteria on these issues, the barometer is conservative and Bush is dropping.
[quote:0fe9637723="rladew"]It sounds to me these people are letting the election happen to them. A poor craftsman always blames his tools and the circumstances. Forget it. Go out there and shake things up.[/quote:0fe9637723]
I sorta agree with this. I blame Gore for losing the 2000 election. Not Nader, definitely. I think Kerry will win. He came from behind in his Senate race against Weld, particularly in the debates, against a more "likeable" candidate. While the polling suggest a slight lead for Bush at this moment, the race is far from over.
I also disagree that the race is "happening to them". Big Media has run with the SBVT and National Guard stories, pushing Kerry of the front page. Talking about Vietnam does not help Kerry, talking about the issues do. As long as Big Media is obssessed with these non-issues, Kerry's mesage gets drowned out, until it's too late.
Some intellectual honesty here, Rich. You can't complain on the one hand that there is a liberal bias in the media, then rejoice on the other hand that the way the media covers the election helps the incumbent.
PS: BQ, I know you're reading this. ;)
Posted by frame609 on 2004-09-14 07:29:55 +0000
When the Sox win the series, they will be able to attract even more marquee players and the team will be even awesomer.
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-14 13:32:07 +0000
[quote:0af882d85a="terryg"][Did you read the article?[/quote:0af882d85a]
I can see where the Dems = good, Reps = bad might come from. Although, I don't think the article was meant to villify anyone, just point out how the Republicans have had success (with Bush particularly) in the past few years.
Do you or don't you agree that on most issues, people identify with Dems? I would not say that leads to making the Dems "good". Tyranny of the majority and everything.
Do you or don't you agree with the characterization of Bush's campaign methods?
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-14 16:36:02 +0000
I apologize: The high five thing was unfair. I was just saying in general there is a tag team thing where either Terry or Dawn (or sometimes Ned or Ed) pipe in and for the most point reiterate each other ultimately. This comment is also made out frustration because I know lots more people (who are a lot wiser by keeping out of this :) are reading this without chiming in.
[quote:eb93842a9d]Do you or don't you agree that on most issues, people identify with Dems?[/quote:eb93842a9d]
Depends on how the issues are explained to people. I would argue Anyone (who is a legit politician that wants to serve the people) is against poverty, pollution, racial discrimination, improved education and healthcare. Its a matter of how to get to these improvements. I would say I agree that people identify with the INTENTIONS of the democratic party, but I would make a bold arguable statement that when the voting public have the meat of how things will have to happen to reach the goals explained to them in a way they understand, they often will not vote for the democrat's brand of solution. Note I did not say republican or Bush Specifically, just that making govt bigger isnt always the best solution.
I took away from this article that the democrats have great ideas , but lose out because the Republicans knee jerk stamp their opponents with "flip-flopper" or other quick soundbytes and people adhere to these mindless soundbytes without considering the wonderful suggestions of the democrats. I could be totally wrong, but thats what I got from it.
It made me feel as though the democrats are saying we are taking the high road, Dems have great ideas, but we always get beaten despite this. My question is this: Once you make this statement, where do go from there? Do you fight back and make your great policies known, or do you say that the Republicans are fighting dirty and accept your loss?
[quote:eb93842a9d]Do you or don't you agree with the characterization of Bush's campaign methods?[/quote:eb93842a9d]
I agree the article has described strategies the republicans (Bush and non Bush parties) have waged as much of a negative war as they can get away with. I don't necessarily support this or even like it.
However, if I'm a politician and my goal is to get elected, don't the ends justify the means as far as you can push the law? If you dont change your strategy, you will lose, even if people say you are a strong finisher. If 2 potential parents are fighting in court for custody of a child, they'd probably fight anyway they knew how to win, no?
I would like to make it known (again) that I am not Bush's poster child. I disagree with him (almost) as much as Kerry. Just that statement alone upsets so many of my friends and colleagues, but just as I am respecting their opinions, I hope for people to respect mine and to still be friends at the end of the day. So far we have done a pretty good job of this here, although I feel we are all getting worked up at each other when we are all Americans concerned with the same problems. Whover wins Nov 2nd, I will ultimately be behind and wish luck on for the next 4 years.
.
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-14 20:06:59 +0000
I can't control who posts what. I guess I could, but, I'd imagine there'd be a lot of grief from people.
[quote:c28a43e900="rladew"]I would say I agree that people identify with the INTENTIONS of the democratic party, but I would make a bold arguable statement that when the voting public have the meat of how things will have to happen to reach the goals explained to them in a way they understand, they often will not vote for the democrat's brand of solution.[/quote:c28a43e900]
That's reasonable, identifying with the intentions. We see the Republicans adopting the language of Democrats these days, too. Vice versa. So that people will identify budget deficits with Dems and health care with Repubs.
How about this meat: As more people become aware of the way the Prescription Drug Bill [sic] was implemented, hasn't support for it dropped?
[quote:c28a43e900="rladew"]I took away from this article that the democrats have great ideas , but lose out because the Republicans knee jerk stamp their opponents with "flip-flopper" or other quick soundbytes and people adhere to these mindless soundbytes without considering the wonderful suggestions of the democrats. I could be totally wrong, but thats what I got from it.[/quote:c28a43e900]
I don't think it claimed that the Dem's ideas were great, just that they usually resonate with a majority of the public. It never said the Repub's knee jerk stamp their opponents (Dukakis is the Mass. Liberal, Kerry the Flip-Flopper, careful consideration went into those labels), but that Republicans are much better at working the "character" angle that resonates with a broader majority of the public.
[quote:c28a43e900="rladew"]It made me feel as though the democrats are saying we are taking the high road, Dems have great ideas, but we always get beaten despite this. My question is this: Once you make this statement, where do go from there? Do you fight back and make your great policies known, or do you say that the Republicans are fighting dirty and accept your loss?[/quote:c28a43e900]
Dawn evidently wants to stick to the higher path. I'd say the Dems need to turn the publics attention back to the egregious Bush failures in Iraq. Every sane, impartial, independent review of the war in Iraq unanimously agree this Administration has flummoxed nearly every aspect of the occupation. I agree with Krugman's editorial today in the NYT (oops!), that Kerry needs to pound Bush on this vulnerable issue.
[quote:c28a43e900]However, if I'm a politician and my goal is to get elected, don't the ends justify the means as far as you can push the law? If you dont change your strategy, you will lose, even if people say you are a strong finisher. If 2 potential parents are fighting in court for custody of a child, they'd probably fight anyway they knew how to win, no?[/quote:c28a43e900]
The ends don't justify the means. That's a basic Judeo-Christian tenet, for a party that courts the Right so much, man, they get it so wrong.
You're right in that if the Dems don't change startegy nationally they'll continue to lose the executive branch. I'm not comfortable with these tactics, the same way Dawn is uncomfortable. It's these tactics that turn people away from politics, which can't be healthy to the body politic.
Parents fighting over custody of a child should realize how much harm that does, and try extra hard to do what's best for the child. This sorta begs the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" analogy.
[quote:c28a43e900]I would like to make it known (again) that I am not Bush's poster child. I disagree with him (almost) as much as Kerry. Just that statement alone upsets so many of my friends and colleagues, but just as I am respecting their opinions, I hope for people to respect mine and to still be friends at the end of the day.[/quote:c28a43e900]
I'm looking forward to your pro-con, review. I know people have legitimate beefs with Kerry. Maybe it's just that ~13,000 Iraqi dead, 1,000 dead soldiers, and 7,000 wounded soldiers trump all my other concerns. That deserves a re-election?
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-14 20:41:59 +0000
you guys probably want a response on this as well: I can try and get more specific as time permits at work, but just my opinions here
[quote:5892ed63e3]Nevermind that Bush has failed on:
national security
the Iraq War
the budget
the economy
personal liberty
gay rights
stem cell research
[/quote:5892ed63e3]
National Security: Don't agree. Its nice to have the United Nations agree with us or give us sound advice, but when someone attacks the US, the US gets to react. Reaction shouldn't be rash or overly cruel or violent, but it should ultimately be the responsibility of our commander in chief, and I feel decisions in this matter have to be swift, decisive and completely confident.
Iraq: Don't Agree the insurgents have made this a mess, but WMD or no Sadaam was a menace and his troops would go into villagers homes, rape their women while the rest of the families were forced to watch. I bet those Iraqi athletes at the olympics were pretty psyched to have a chance at a democracy instead of a dictatorship
budget: agree Bush has spent money like crazy: steel Tariffs, Farm Subsidies, Medicare bennies all while NEVER VETOING A BILL. what kind of president doesn't veto a bill. this is a sore spot of mine.
the economy: disagree. Introduction of personal savings accounts, reducing taxes to stimulate the economy, lowes tintrest rate we've had in a long time are all good things and the economy will improve because of these factors (probably in time for Kerry to assume ownership of them if he is elected..)
personal liberty: Is this a reference to the PATRIOT act? if so , it should be under National Security. I don't agree with this BTW
Gay Rights: I completely agree. Kerrys stance on this matter is very close to Bush: he opposes gay marriages but approves civil unions - a bit fuzzy to me - and I will shit a brick if either of these 2 men make a dent in this issue. Congress will strike this stuff down pretty easily. anyone who pays taxes should have the same rights as every other as Jefferson says the Pursuit of Happiness. period.
Stem Cell research: I completely agree on this again and is important in tandem with healthcare: whether its Bush's stance on Stem Cells or Kerry's socialization of health care ( which makes me feel like mediocrity would be required and rewarded,) and if it is true that cream rises to the top, our best Doctors and Scientists are at risk with either Bush or Kerry. At least with Bush they might be better rewarded (and respected if there is Tort reform) and stay here. It's a catch 22 though. There is no good reason why we cant use stem cell research to better mankind in general and America in specific.
Posted by on 2004-09-14 21:03:28 +0000
Two quick things:
1) Does anyone [i:b98bf4694f]still[/i:b98bf4694f] believe the Republicans are the fiscally responsible ones? I'm realizing some people [b:b98bf4694f]DO![/b:b98bf4694f]
2) [quote:b98bf4694f]I would make a bold arguable statement that when the voting public have the meat of how things will have to happen to reach the goals explained to them in a way they understand, they often will not vote for the democrat's brand of solution.[/quote:b98bf4694f]
Perhaps some of the time, yes, but most of the time no....
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-14 21:12:48 +0000
[quote:6c667c4762]I'm not comfortable with these tactics, the same way Dawn is uncomfortable. It's these tactics that turn people away from politics, which can't be healthy to the body politic.[/quote:6c667c4762]
So what's the change here, then? You've made your "moral high road" stance. Waht are you going to do with it. If you are right and justified in the middle of a forest, does anyone know that you are right and morally justified?
All this moral high road stuff reeks of intellectual snobbery: you would rather be right and lose and have the country governed by someone you hate then win? Don't like the system? Change the system without blaming Rove and by taking action (no Dawn, Im not telling you to burn anything down here: its just that I haven't seen you or Terry suggest what to do after you've established that Bush is a so-called lying cheating bastard.
Saying he's a lying cheating bastard in op-eds, on street corners, on message boards, movies and music might be cool, but if you want change in the system bring some action and leave the words at home. I personally haven't seen any take action suggestions from the Democrats.
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-14 21:24:09 +0000
[quote:0d55425ba8]1) Does anyone still believe the Republicans are the fiscally responsible ones? I'm realizing some people DO![/quote:0d55425ba8]
My previous post supported your argument:
[quote:0d55425ba8]budget: agree Bush has spent money like crazy: steel Tariffs, Farm Subsidies, Medicare bennies all while NEVER VETOING A BILL. what kind of president doesn't veto a bill. this is a sore spot of mine.[/quote:0d55425ba8]
but I feel like you're saying (and I might be reading in to this too much - there's no tone and very few indicators of friendly joking / sarcasm when you are posting / e-mailing etc) You're still in the dark ages? You're blind enough to believe that sentiment? Have you been living in a cave? (again: my perceptions: this could have had some completely different intention) I do the best to give people with different viewpoints the impression that I do value their different viewpoint. This feels like an insinuation that Im a brute caveman with a 50 pt IQ.
Bush is representing the party of new ideas here, and WSJ, the economist (see Terry's linked editorial) are just a few sources that support me here. Limiting or eliminating dividend taxes on people's hard earned investments, allowing people how and when to spend their own earned health care $$$ are forward, positive and optimistic thinking on how to meet Americas future problems
Meanwhile I feel like all the democrats are screaming at me that the sky is falling and that each day I live on the planet is worse than the day before, and the way to solve this is to give this government of ours more control with more bureacracies, more tax dollars, etc....[/quote]
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-14 21:59:15 +0000
[b:1c996d09c5]moral high ground[/b:1c996d09c5]
I think I already responded that Kerry needs to hit Bush where he's vulnerable: on Iraq.
[b:1c996d09c5]party of new ideas[/b:1c996d09c5]
The Economist article talks about Bush's radical changes, true. I happen to disagree with all of them (I think the Economist does as well...)
[b:1c996d09c5]bureaucracies[/b:1c996d09c5]
Rich, I don't think I've ever advocated for more bureaucracies, bigger government as the solution to every problem. It's true that I'm not as skeptical of worth of government as you are. Every time someone suggests not supporting Bush, that's the rationale flung back. On another thread, I posited that with Kerrry in the WH and the Republicans in control of the House, if not the Senate too, there'd be better fiscal policy then the rubber stamp approval of every bill these past four years. If both parties have to compromise, then we get better legislation.
If you agree that Bush is a lying cheating bastard and you want to re-elect him, that's your right. It's a little late for either Dawn or I to run on the Republican, Democratic, Green, or Libertarian Party ticket, so I'm making my opinions known. I could help out the Kerry campaign, but, he's probably going to do all-right in Massachusetts. Being a former New Hampshirite, I can guess the reaction I'd get going door to door in Berlin or Bristol advocating for Kerry.