The fact that you anecdotally know some republicans who don't think this way is utterly irrelevant. If you think the South and Prairie states are voting Republican because they sat down and engaged in a thoughtful analysis of the candidates' respective opinions on the War on Terror, that's your delusion, not reality.

you talk as if you know the 'religious right' so well, and yet claim they're stupid and deserve to die, be tortured, etc. do you think that i deserve torture or death? do you think that's why i keep coming in here and reading ridiculous comments like yours? you seem to think you have everyone that voted for bush pegged so well, do you? you claim to have a perspective on reality, and yet all you have is just that - a perspective, and absolutely no claim to absolute truth. you deserve your anger in your own right and in your own mind as an american. but to wish death upon those who do not share your views is disgusting.

stewie wrote wrote:You've got to be kidding me.

no, i seriously am not. aside from occasionally discussing what states might contain the marriage amendment and how this might affect voter turnout, i never heard the topic discussed. and when i did, it was very brief and in passing. i heard mostly iraq and the economy (job reports, etc) being covered, and i watched/read/listened to many of the media outlets you mentioned. well, not laura ingraham and definitely not rush limbaugh. maybe it was the time of day i tuned in. i don't know. i did hear it more after the election, when discussing exit polls, etc. is that what you're referring to?

*bites tongue*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections20 ... 92,00.html

steve wrote:One cannot behave like Karl Rove and be true to that difference, and I would argue that if the Left ever started behaving like that, it would not be worth whatever power it could accumulate. It would be an embarrassment.

Yeah, yr right. I'm reminded here of the West Wing episode where Rob Lowe and Brad Whitford confront the hooker Rob Lowe was sleeping with, in order to collect GOP names for blackmail purposes. All of a sudden, Brad Whitford's character has a conscience attack and calls the whole thing off, saying, "It's just not what we do ..."

steve wrote:When the fuckers win, we should not react by behaving like fuckers ourselves. We should be able to highlight their fuckery and let them be their own undoing. It happened with Nixon, it happened with Gingrich, and it will happen with these fuckers eventually.

OK, OK, I should've been clearer: I don't want the left to have its own Goebbels. I just want people to work harder, much much harder, to get the forces of evil out of public life. I feel like I'm ganged up with a bunch of latte-sipping pussies, pardon my red-state language. I like lattes and treating people fairly and a whole buncha other shit that fits in with the commonly understood (and probably wholly invalid) stereotype of what a liberal or Leftist is. But there's a spinelessness, for lack of a better word, that seems to have manifested itself in the party leadership ever since McGovern took a shit in '72. It is toward this perceived tendency that I was aiming my comments.

I mean, there was incontrovertible evidence of cronyism and bad, self-dealing policy all over the place. The rationale behind the war was exposed as false and misleading, and every commonly used metric to assess the efficacy of a presidential administration was and is still in the toilet.

And yet the RNC's research directors somehow sussed out that all they would need to do, essentially, was gay-marriage the hell out of the electorate.

My argument is this: There's no reason the Left can't be just as aggressive and still remain honest and ethical. There's nothing slimy about repeatedly pointing out the ties between the Administration and the big business interests it is directly helping. Ditto for pointing out that the Bush tax cuts benefit the wealthiest Americans while screwing the average voter -- including the ones who apparently hate gays and Eastern liberal elitist-types. Same for highlighting the deliberately misleading case for Iraq. Just put all the evidence up there -- repeatedly, ad nauseum -- until it's drilled into every American brain to the same extent that all that swift boat nonsense was.

I do not advocate such Rove-esque tactics as sending GOP operatives out dressed like homosexuals to advocate for gay marriage in front of swing-state churches.

Remember, Nixon wasn't drummed out of office until after he beat McGovern like a cheap drum ... And the Wash Post had already run much of its Watergate coverage by that point. That is not an encouraging little bit of history to have to confront three days into our newest national nightmare. Nor the fact that Gingrich managed to steamroll his "Contract With America" through Congress long before he got the boot.

Maybe it's the proximity of the defeat -- maybe my feelings on this are a little intemperate right now, and reason will eventually flush out the white-hot rage now coursing through my circulatory system -- but it really feels like these bastards are stepping on my tender little larynx with their jackboots, and I just want them off of me, even if I have to resort to something other than Queensbury rules to get it done. I'm a bit calmer now, though. Two days of sleep, fitful though it was, have lowered the heart rate and the throbbing in the temples.

Thank you, by the way, for offering a glimmer of hope by saying it will "happen with these fuckers eventually."

Interesting:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

While I will concede that Karl Rove is... "effective," I certainly don't want his evil twin working for my cause. He is a fucker, and will stoop lower than humans should allow in order to win. He readily lies, plants false stories, exploits racism and intolerance, and obfuscates by painting those who disagree as heathens.

He readily lies: you mean like the repeated stupid lie about the upcoming draft from the Kerry campaign? Or Kerry's lie about Bush's 'secret' plans that would take place after the first oft he year? Or Kerry's lie about meeting with the entire UN security council before the war?

He plants false stories: you mean like ultra-liberal Dan Rather and his false documents?

He exploits intolerance and obfuscates by painting those who disagree as heathens: like everyone on this board who paints those who disagree as ignorant NASCAR-watchers?

I was really looking forward to this election because I thought at the very least that four years of infantile whining from the left would come to an end. I was wrong.

I was really looking forward to this election because I thought at the very least that four years of superstituous, jingoistic, delusional stupidity from the right would come to an end. I was wrong.

angry planet wrote:

While I will concede that Karl Rove is... "effective," I certainly don't want his evil twin working for my cause. He is a fucker, and will stoop lower than humans should allow in order to win. He readily lies, plants false stories, exploits racism and intolerance, and obfuscates by painting those who disagree as heathens.

He readily lies: you mean like the repeated stupid lie about the upcoming draft from the Kerry campaign? Or Kerry's lie about Bush's 'secret' plans that would take place after the first oft he year? Or Kerry's lie about meeting with the entire UN security council before the war?

He plants false stories: you mean like ultra-liberal Dan Rather and his false documents?

He exploits intolerance and obfuscates by painting those who disagree as heathens: like everyone on this board who paints those who disagree as ignorant NASCAR-watchers?

I was really looking forward to this election because I thought at the very least that four years of infantile whining from the left would come to an end. I was wrong.

Campaigns are weird things - promises are made, the opposition is demonized, pitchers of beer are not shared equitably, you name it.

Let's stick to campaign tactics. Here is one example of what Rove has found acceptable:

In the Republican primary in 2000, Rove planted a "push poll" that called up potential voters and asked them, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?â€

angry planet wrote:He readily lies: you mean like the repeated stupid lie about the upcoming draft from the Kerry campaign?

It was a subject of active discussion within the Bush Administration, to the extent that Bush himself had to deny it publicly -- notably during the second debate -- once a decision was reached.

I love the Freedom of Information Act. Sometimes it tells us what our government is actually up to. Like planning to reinstate the draft.

angry planet wrote:Or Kerry's lie about Bush's 'secret' plans that would take place after the first oft he year?

We haven't yet gotten to the first of the year, so how do you know? With the administration's track record (c.f. Cheney meeting with energy industry representatives and refusing to disclose the nature of the conversations -- in violation of the law, I might add), and the complaints from the White House press corps -- even those from the Wash Times and Fox -- that this administration is the most closed-off, non-responsive and secretive since Nixon, it's not unlikely.

It defies logic to call the assertion a lie when it can't even be refuted yet.

angry planet wrote:Or Kerry's lie about meeting with the entire UN security council before the war?

This is an easy one. Kerry never said he talked to the entire UN council. When he said he "talked to all of them," he was referring to the four he actually met with on September 30.
Even Fox News acknowledges this.

angry planet wrote:He plants false stories: you mean like ultra-liberal Dan Rather and his false documents?

Sorry. Having worked in news organizations since 1994, I can tell you that no "media conspiracy" exists. We have a hard enough time getting our shit together to get the news product out the door every night. Christ, just try rounding up a half-dozen reporters and editors to agree on a place for cocktails and you will quickly shitcan that tired old "media conspiracy" nonsense. Also, having worked in the news biz for 10 yrs, I can safely tell you that, had the Kerry campaign tried to plant a story with CBS News, the story of the night would have been that the Kerry campaign tried to plant a story. Not that journalists don't gladly take documents from sources, but they bristle when they sense they're being steered.

I will leave the Washington Times out of this for now.

The consensus in the days following CBS's blunder is this: They had the documents, thought they were genuine, and didn't vet them thoroughly enough before rushing the story on-air. It's sloppy reporting, not a conspiracy.

angry planet wrote:He exploits intolerance and obfuscates by painting those who disagree as heathens: like everyone on this board who paints those who disagree as ignorant NASCAR-watchers?

I've never done that + I am on this board = You would seem to be wrong in asserting that "everyone on this board" does so.

I've also never seen any instances where Kerry or anyone connected to his campaign has done anything of the sort. Cite yr evidence.

Now, let's talk GOP, and how they dressed their minons up as homosexuals and sent them out to wave pro-gay-adoption signs in front of churches. That's just one example. I've got plenty more if yr up to it.

angry planet wrote:I was really looking forward to this election because I thought at the very least that four years of infantile whining from the left would come to an end. I was wrong.

I'm sorry that you cast dissenting viewpoints as "infantile whining." Me, I would characterize an inability to listen to and debate opposing views (without resorting to namecalling and distortions) as infantile.

I won't whine. I'll just demolish yr arguments.

angry planet wrote:He exploits intolerance and obfuscates by painting those who disagree as heathens: like everyone on this board who paints those who disagree as ignorant NASCAR-watchers?

NASCAR has nothing to do with it. In fact, I would not insult NASCAR fans these days by referring to them as Republicans.

The Republicans are wrong on almost every front these days: the economy and taxation, social issues, health care, education, international relations, the environment. You name it, and I think the general Republican party line on every issue is just awful. I have never seen people more selfish, shortsighted, mean-spirited, xenophobic and unenlightened than the modern day diehard Republican.

And here's the rub: I am one who is inclined toward centrist policies. In fact, by any logical standard that puts my self-interest above that of my fellow countrymen, I probably should be a Republican.

I see the place and purpose of the Republican Party. Among other things, it can be an effective proponent of legitimate business interests and a counterbalance to overaggressive social programming.

Most importantly, I'm not one who wants a Democratic steamroller. I like compromise. I love the fact that we have a political system that is specifically designed to prevent extremism. I like the fact that the parties operate to spoil one another's party.

But Republicans these days are extreme and wrong. Dead wrong. And they have discovered a system by which to polarize and falsely frighten certain elements of the population in order to "deliver" hair's breadth victories, and they use these victories to pursue an agenda that is wrongheaded and dangerous.

By any standard, that is not democracy in action. It is not the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

It's power brokerage. It is pandering. It is un-American activity.

This is not whining. This is an expression of deep disappointment in and resentment toward the Republican Party. Again, I see the place and purpose of the Republican Party. But the Republican Party now lacks perspective and compassion, and it has chosen to pursue a path that will cause many people to suffer. They choose to win at all costs to pursue their positions. And the current positions and actions of the Republican Party are completely unconscionable.

I reject the Republican Party and its adherents and apologists.