The 2004 Election has been the most emotional in my lifetime, perhaps in history besides Lincoln-Douglas in 1860. (Of course, a bit of a war broke out over that one.) However, now that the election is over, the politicians and candidates have called for reconcilliation and healing of the rift between right and left. Before you shout me down telling me to "shut up"
JoeUser Forums
landen81: First, the right wants "links" to evidence. Then you give them some and they say they aren't legit and you should move to Canada or France. Hmmm... there is nothing like tolerance. .....and this is nothing like tolerance!
Texas Wahine: Just when I thought I couldn't find any humor in this mess.... Thanks, dude!
Steven: Not sure about the last quote. It was pretty well established that blacks voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. I don't think anyone was taken for granted in this election, Kerry never had a chance anyway (as Al Hunt said last night on Capital Gang on CNN). However, the issue now is the future and we should be realistic that the Democrats loss should help us build a better base in the future.
drmiler: The FEC? C'mon, once more you think a Federal beauracracy controlled by a Republican administration is going to investigate the state where the President's brother is governor and the state government is Republican too? Oh my, whatever you're smoking, is it available nationwide?
drmiler: Once again, you question whether abuses occur, even when your own party MADE THE ACCUSATIONS in many cases?! When are you going to realize that an election manipulated in any way is wrong?
little_whip: Bravo! BTW: I haven't said the abuses invalidate the election. (and I don't think you accused me of saying it, but just to set the record straight). The key is that we don't let this situation just fester over and over.... over and over... over and over... I hope we are all in agreement on that.
hitparade: So....all of these reported abuses, they are a fusiallade of allegations that are unproven and untrue? C'mon, you're brighter than that. Abuses occur, on both sides, we see them every election and mostly dismiss them only to have them occur over and over. Is this the Shining light to the world? We got problems which we don't deal with, so be like us?
Daiwa: Well put and my feelings are in agreement. Before the election when many thought Kerry was going to win I read many threads saying how JU people were going to put Kerry's "feet to the fire" over issues that we need to deal with. I hope we all will see citizen activism grow now that the election is over to put Bush's feet in a similarly warm place so that issues like this don't just drift off for the next 4 years, only to ree
dharmagirl: Are you using an argument of patriotism to defend voting irregularities? Let's take the election results out of the equation. GWB won. But for next time, will we allow the same problems that occured, whatever they were, to occur again? I mean I understand your rant, no problem. But for the sake of the country, this is the 2nd time in a row that the voting got mucked up. Shouldn't there be an attempt at fixing it?</f
bleedingheartliberal: As you can see by the threads, our conservative friends don't care if abuses occured. So, let's open up the discussion. Hey everybody: Is it all right to cheat if you win? Since that makes you the MAJORITY, imposing your will doesn't matter?
hitparade: Let me ask a question here. If there were voting "irregularities" are you saying "just them go" or wouldn't you like to fix them? I mean, some of the nonsense was extreme. Some districts had 4 voting machines for 500 voters registered and some had 1. Some places "conveniently" lost records forcing provisional ballot use. Some voting machines registered votes for the opposite of the candidate selected. When do we as
drmiler: The connections between the Republicans and the Swift Boat people has been well established. Also, (trying to anticipate your next response) there is a connection between Democratic 527's and the Democratic Party. These groups were a direct result of McCain-Finegold done so that soft money could be "controlled" or it was inteneded that way. Remember when the President said he wanted to do something about the situation? W
Daiwa: The real choice in the election was Bush or "not Bush" and Kerry had little if anything to do with it. The Democrats could have run Sparky the Wonder Dog and the election result wouldn't have been different. If it could have been changed, how? When 78% had already made up their mind before October 1, you can't say the campaign in the last month or the debates. So, taking October and the debates out of the picture, what cou
pictatorus: I'm not sure that you can really get to the bottom of your question in a thread like this. I will give you an incomplete answer and we will got back and forth until we are tired of it. I would much rather exchange e-mails. Mine is [email protected] and I welcome the discussion!
drmiler: Only one group with attack ads?? Anyone want to support dr? Even your friends know there were 5 or 6 that ran ads even in deep blue states the money flowed so well from the Republican party brass and their "non-ties" to the 527's. How about Sinclair's attempt to show Stolen Honor? I suppose that doesn't count either, does it?
pictatorus: Yes, the Democrats do have trouble mobilizing the voter. The lack of effort on their parts in 2000 was what prompted the huge effort of the last several years to get the inner city vote registered and active. I'm not sure what the relationship between Clinton in the 90's (Clinton ran in 92 as a charismatic man with a tremendously positive message and George Bush had violated what was then a cardinal sin to Republicans of
Madine: I had a source that gave a more complete picture but if you read this from the LA Times Link it talks about the ratio and the impact. Yes, it includes 527's which were almost exclusively attack oriented.
dr: You know, suggesting there was one 527 group on Bush's side is ROFL funny and incorrect. The truth is that both sides had more than a dozen each. The thing is, the right used all it's ad money not talking about the positives of Bush but the negatives of Kerry and everyone knows it. I'd bet you couldn't find 3 positive ads about Bush by his 527 supporters. Now why is that?
Draginol: Once again (and once more for the record) I don't represent the Democratic Party and was undecided until the last week of the campaign. So my "arrogance" as you phrase it is inconsequential. I don't think the leadership of the Democratic Party is reading either my blog or yours. However, in regard to the quote, what I am saying is that the coalition on the right is made up of diverse groups whom would not associate with
pictoratus: Among "independent" (i.e. non-affiliated) voters Kerry and Bush ran even suggesting that they were just as likely as the affiliated to have made up their mind weeks before the election, perhaps even before the debate. Most of them I would think weighed Iraq versus Terrorism and came down on the debate the same way everyone else did (divided). The polls would not indicate that divisiveness is a Democratic theme. Consider
Dr. Guy: First, I am not a representative for the Democratic Party nor am I running for office. Second, Draginol is entitled to his opinion as am I. Certainly his opinion before the election didn't pan out and you will notice that I never predicted victory for anyone. My endorsement of Kerry was based on issues which I determined were important to the future, which Kerry had a better chance of solving IMO. Finally, if we as America
pictatorus: I really don't think that ANYTHING Kerry did in the debates actually had any effect on the Bush voters. Had he tried to paint Bush any blacker the base would have become more and more energized to "protect their own." The thing is, the next Republican candidate won't have that luxury.
historyishere: No, Bush crushed McCain in the 2000 primaries by doing the same thing he did to Kerry. Evangelicals have very good memories and would reject McCain (I think he is somewhat pro-choice also).
historyishere: Well, I don't think that will work. A Republican candidate will have to appeal to the party Bush leaves behind that feels betrayed very easily by any indication of weakness. This is something that the polls didn't talk about but obviously when Bush would not admit that he had made mistakes this is something that the "moral values" people LIKED! Any of the Republicans talked about in 2008 would lose the "moral values