Cry Baby Democrats: a note from Michael Moore

[Pure]

[from his website]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:03 PM

Subject: Put Away Your Hankies...a message from Michael Moore



9/20/04

Dear Friends,

Enough of the handwringing! Enough of the doomsaying! Do I have to come there and personally calm you down? Stop with all the defeatism, OK? Bush IS a goner -- IF we all just quit our whining and bellyaching and stop shaking like a bunch of nervous ninnies. Geez, this is embarrassing! The Republicans are laughing at us. Do you ever see them cry, "Oh, it's all over! We are finished! Bush can't win! Waaaaaa!"

Hell no. It's never over for them until the last ballot is shredded. They are never finished -- they just keeping moving forward like sharks that never sleep, always pushing, pulling, kicking, blocking, lying.

They are relentless and that is why we secretly admire them -- they just simply never, ever give up. Only 30% of the country calls itself "Republican," yet the Republicans own it all -- the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the majority of the governorships. How do you think they've been able to pull that off considering they are a minority? It's because they eat you and me and every other liberal for breakfast and then spend the rest of the day wreaking havoc on the planet.

Look at us -- what a bunch of crybabies. Bush gets a bounce after his convention and you would have thought the Germans had run through Poland again. The Bushies are coming, the Bushies are coming! Yes, they caught Kerry asleep on the Swift Boat thing. Yes, they found the frequency in Dan Rather and ran with it. Suddenly it's like, "THE END IS NEAR! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

No, it is not. If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.

Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down. But WE are not running for president -- Kerry is. So quit complaining and work with what we have. Oprah just gave 300 women a... Pontiac! Did you see any of them frowning and moaning and screaming, "Oh God, NOT a friggin' Pontiac!" Of course not, they were happy. The Pontiacs all had four wheels, an engine and a gas pedal. You want more than that, well, I can't help you. I had a Pontiac once and it lasted a good year. And it was a VERY good year.

My friends, it is time for a reality check.

1. The polls are wrong. They are all over the map like diarrhea. On Friday, one poll had Bush 13 points ahead -- and another poll had them both tied. There are three reasons why the polls are b.s.: One, they are polling "likely voters." "Likely" means those who have consistently voted in the past few elections. So that cuts out young people who are voting for the first time and a ton of non-voters who are definitely going to vote in THIS election. Second, they are not polling people who use their cell phone as their primary phone. Again, that means they are not talking to young people. Finally, most of the polls are weighted with too many Republicans, as pollster John Zogby revealed last week. You are being snookered if you believe any of these polls.

2. Kerry has brought in the Clinton A-team. Instead of shunning Clinton (as Gore did), Kerry has decided to not make that mistake.

3. Traveling around the country, as I've been doing, I gotta tell ya, there is a hell of a lot of unrest out there. Much of it is not being captured by the mainstream press. But it is simmering and it is real. Do not let those well-produced Bush rallies of angry white people scare you. Turn off the TV! (Except Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers -- everything else is just a sugar-coated lie).

4. Conventional wisdom says if the election is decided on "9/11" (the fear of terrorism), Bush wins. But if it is decided on the job we are doing in Iraq, then Bush loses. And folks, that "job," you might have noticed, has descended into the third level of a hell we used to call Vietnam. There is no way out. It is a full-blown mess of a quagmire and the body bags will sadly only mount higher. Regardless of what Kerry meant by his original war vote, he ain't the one who sent those kids to their deaths -- and Mr. and Mrs. Middle America knows it. Had Bush bothered to show up when he was in the "service" he might have somewhat of a clue as to how to recognize an immoral war that cannot be "won." All he has delivered to Iraq was that plasticized turkey last Thanksgiving. It is this failure of monumental proportions that is going to cook his goose come this November.

So, do not despair. All is not over. Far from it. The Bush people need you to believe that it is over. They need you to slump back into your easy chair and feel that sick pain in your gut as you contemplate another four years of George W. Bush. They need you to wish we had a candidate who didn't windsurf and who was just as smart as we were when WE knew Bush was lying about WMD and Saddam planning 9/11. It's like Karl Rove is hypnotizing you -- "Kerry voted for the war...Kerry voted for the war...Kerrrrrryyy vooootted fooooor theeee warrrrrrrrrr..."

Yes...Yes...Yesssss...He did! HE DID! No sense in fighting now...what I need is sleep...sleeep...sleeeeeeppppp...

WAKE UP! The majority are with us! More than half of all Americans are pro-choice, want stronger environmental laws, are appalled that assault weapons are back on the street -- and 54% now believe the war is wrong. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CONVINCE THEM OF ANY OF THIS -- YOU JUST HAVE TO GIVE THEM A RAY OF HOPE AND A RIDE TO THE POLLS. CAN YOU DO THAT? WILL YOU DO THAT?

Just for me, please? Buck up. The country is almost back in our hands. Not another negative word until Nov. 3rd! Then you can bitch all you want about how you wish Kerry was still that long-haired kid who once had the courage to stand up for something. Personally, I think that kid is still inside him. Instead of the wailing and gnashing of your teeth, why not hold out a hand to him and help the inner soldier/protester come out and defeat the forces of evil we now so desperately face. Do we have any other choice?

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com

 

[BlackShanglan]

They are never finished -- they just keeping moving forward like sharks that never sleep, always pushing, pulling, kicking, blocking, lying.

This is the most fabulous screwy metaphor. It's like something the Tick would come out with. I can just see those sharks out there kicking ... with what? Their tailfins?

A really good mixed metaphor has a power and beauty all its own. I remember well dear Samuel Bull ... "When shall the lion of tyranny walk hand in hand with the floodgates of freedom" ... let's just stop and picture that for a moment. Or my personal favorite, in a time of national unrest: "I am writing this letter, sirs, with a sword in one hand, and a pistol in the other." And the pen, presumably, between his toes.

Instead of the wailing and gnashing of your teeth, why not hold out a hand to him and help the inner soldier/protester come out and defeat the forces of evil we now so desperately face. Do we have any other choice?

One of the better arguments I've seen for voting third party. Anything has to be better than another twenty years of "Of course our candidate is awful! But he's the only alternative to theirs!" How I long for the Lib Dems or the SNP over here.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

Some of Moore's rants are silly. But he has this one by a good tight hold. I've been exasperated myself how easily these people have swallowed the bait and believed the "polls."

I wish more people had read this one.

 

[Guest]

This is the most fabulous screwy metaphor. It's like something the Tick would come out with.

Shanglan, I love the Tick! Also glad you noted the 'literary' aspects. My boss sent me Moore's rant.

Perdita

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shanglan, I love the Tick! Also glad you noted the 'literary' aspects. My boss sent me Moore's rant.

Perdita

What is there not to love about the Tick? I have the live-action DVD's and have to ration myself in watching them, as they inevitably lead to me wandering about grumbling irascibly on the topic of what idiot decided to cancel that series. It's tragic when a giant blue brickhead and "an idiot in a bunny suit" are too intelligent for the majority of the American populace.

Who can resist "I am the silver ladle of goodness dripping the red hot gravy of justice over the cold, lumpy mashed potatoes of evil?"

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

I adored Batmanuel.

Perdita

Edited to add:

"Babies, chum. Tiny, dimpled, fleshy, little mirrors of our us-ness that we parents hurl into the future like leathery footballs of hope. And you've gotta get a good spiral on that baby or evil will make an interception." - the Tick

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Wasn't I trying to say something like that a couple of days ago?

Not said as well, of course, nor with as much authority, but still, something like.


What Michael didn't say was that if a shark doesn't keep moving forward it asphyxiates.



Let's go smother a bunch of fluking sharks!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hope springs eternal. And you have only to look at Truman beating Dewy when every major poll showed him loosing to realize they can't tell you before election day what' going to happen.

Polls have, however become very accurate and while they cannot predict the winner with certainty they can show definte trends.

So here a re a few of the things this rant didn't want you to hear.

Bush is favored by men over Kerry by an absolutely astonishing 60% to 45% with Nader garnering 3% in one poll. Margin of error +/- 3%.

Bush and Kerry are running neck and neck with women voters, who fear Kerry will be bad for security, Gore was favored by women by almost 11%.

Kerry has withdrawn advertising from La., Arizona, Ark., and Missouri. States his campaign said they needed to take from Bush just a few months ago.

Due to changeing Demographics, Kerry could win every state Gore did and loose by a larger margin in the electoral college.

Kerry isn't even favored by the majority of voters right now, where as Al won the popular vote.

These polls and facts don't spell doom, any more than the polls in the Dewy-Truman election did. They do however strongly suggest the GWB is opening his lead gained from his convention, rather than seeing it lessen. I hope the majority of Democrats don't give up. At the same time I hope they don't throw on the rose colored glasses and get out the pom poms, as this man clearly has.

The trends need to be reversed, telling each other they are irrlevant is tantamount to suicide. Bush has weaknesses in areas that can be exploited, if the Kerry campaign foregoes this Buchananesque campaign and lets their candidate make some strong stetements on what he DOES stand for. Draw some contrasts between himself and Bush. Take a stand on something for god's sake, anything. Bush is ugly and his momma dresses him funny, anything.

The other option is to start your campaign parties on election night with irish whiskey rather than champagne, in the sure knowledge that before the votes are all counted you will be attending a wake.

-Colly

 

[carsonshepherd]

that's the thing about those of us who are NOT aligned with the fundamentalist, Christian, take-away-our-rights-except-the-ones-we-like Right. There are a lot of us but we aren't organized and we don't scream as loudly!

Thank God for Michael Moore. I think extremism in any form is inherently dangerous, but he's the last liberal with the balls to scream and I admire him. (I also met him once too. He's kinda surly.)

 

[Pure]

Trouble is, some polls have proven pretty accurate. Of course the electoral college thing is a kink in the prediction problem, meaning the polls would have to be tallied state by state--I've seen CNN attempt this, and it had Bush at 301, well over the majority. Bush is slated to take the entire south and midwest, but maybe lose NY, New England, Calif., and a couple others. I guess the rust belt is still up for grabs.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Trouble is, some polls have proven pretty accurate. Of course the electoral college thing is a kink in the prediction problem, meaning the polls would have to be tallied state by state--I've seen CNN attempt this, and it had Bush at 301, well over the majority. Bush is slated to take the entire south and midwest, but maybe lose NY, New England, Calif., and a couple others. I guess the rust belt is still up for grabs.

I saw a state by state, with only those ates up for grabs done, those solidly enough in one camp or other weren't mentioned. The contentious states as I recall were Penn., Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. NY was in Kerry's camp as well as Cali. The entire Southe east minus Florida was in Bush's camp.

-Colly

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

I saw a state by state, with only those ates up for grabs done, those solidly enough in one camp or other weren't mentioned. The contentious states as I recall were Penn., Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. NY was in Kerry's camp as well as Cali. The entire Southe east minus Florida was in Bush's camp.

-Colly

What amazes me is that the south has always been predominately Democrat. Even my family is known as yellow dog democrats. But this year they refuse to vote for Kerry. I'm independent and can't bring myself to vote for the man. Even though I voted for Clinton and Gore. Here in Alabama I've been surprised to see write in's to the paper by a few saying they'll leave the states if Kerry is elected. I don't think I've ever heard that in an election before. Not with Gore, Bush, Clinton, Reagon, Dole and etc.
You think maybe us slow thinking southerners are onto something this time? This election the south is supporting Bush and so will Florida. It'll be a clean sweep down here ya'll. Sorry, had to add the ya'll.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

People in the South were long Democrats because the Dem's financial policy is really more advantageous to the majority. The problem is that the GOP has algined itself very firmly with social positions popular in the south. The Dems have no answer for that, changeing their social policy wuld only alienate their core, so they have watched rather helplessly as it has happened. To a leser degree in the midwest and west.

I don't see Kerry carrying any state south of the mason dixon line, but I think florida is too close to call. Especially with all the hurrican upheaval, I don't doubt a lot of people won't make it to the polls. Whether that will help or hurt the dems, I don't think anyone can day.

-Colly

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Alot of the South still carries the dixiecrat mentality. They were democrat in name, but widely held more conservative values. Ky is a good example. Registered Dems outnumber registered Repubs by about 2-1, yet the Repubs hold the governorship, both senate seats, and 7 out of 8 congressional seats. Bush holds a 12-15 point lead in the state.

An ultra Lib like Kerry simply isn't going to get the votes in the south, even from the Dixiecrats.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

On last Monday I think the Democrtas started putting a new strategy in effect: Kerry started to talk about the issues. I have no idea what their strategy was before then, but this new one really knocked me out. Kerry came out and said that Iraq has been a total fuck up from the start and was a fuck up today, and—lo and behold—what he said was true and what he said made the news.

The way you beat GW Bush is by running against his record, not his National Guard Service or Conservative vs Liberal or South vs North or straight vs gay. You remind people of where America was 4 years ago in terms of the economy and war and peace and national stature and you make them look at where we are today, and if you do that clearly and consistently, then there’s a very good chance that Kerry will win. And even if he doesn’t, at least you’ve made the people think about what their vote means, and the more you can get past the slogans and get people to think, the better things are going to be for the Democrats.

I’m more hopeful now than I’ve been since the conventions. I think if Kerry keeps this up it’ll be a horse race for the simple fact that there’s no way Bush can deny what he’s done. His record speaks for itself.

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I read that they brought on some of Clinton's ex staffers Doc.

Also saw an op/ed piece that said since Kerry is giving up on The south, he can take the gloves off now. Apparently part of the plan was not to antagonize southern Democrats.

-Colly

 

[BlackShanglan]

One of the issues that I imagine Kerry might now work - if, as Colleen suggests, he's given up his "softly softly" approach with the South - is voter turnout. If I don't mistake my figures, in most of our recent elections the majority vote-winner has been "I didn't make it to the polls." One of the dangers of everyone trying to play "centrist" is that while it does avoid pissing off fence-sitters, it doesn't mobilize the troops with rousing gusto. If Kerry is now re-thinking his attempts to cast himself as essentially as similar to Bush as possible, he might think about taking a less numerically popular stance in hopes of stirring some fire in those further left. If he can get them excited enough about him to seriously boost their voter turnout numbers, he might be able to make some ground. If he only appeals to 40% of the voters but he gets half of those to actually vote, he's got a good chance of taking it. I assume that this is actually Moore's goal - to stir up the voters and get them out there instead of sitting home feeling beaten and not voting for what they think is a lost cause.

Of course, one assumes that Bush will do roughly the same thing. I was quite surprised to hear Rush Limbaugh telling his listeners the other day that he thought they had this one in the bag. I can only assume that he was working the theory that people like to be on a winning side, but if I was Bush I would have had qualms about how far he took it. He certainly would not have fired me with a burning passion to vote; he made it sound like it would hardly be worth bothering to show up. Not all that politically astute to my thinking.

Shanglan

 

[hiddenself]

I'll bet you anything

that Bush will have an easy advantage of at least 40 electors when the beans are counted.

The Democratic party is made up of a bunch of spineless wimps who deserve to have their butts kicked. If they can't stand for anything, then "4 more years" is what we'll inevitably get. Kerry actually makes Bush look good (well, as good as he can ever look anyway)! It's mind-boggling but what can you do?

The Democrats need a Barry Goldwater. He got swept by Johnson in 64. And yet, within three years, an inspired Ronald Reagan took California and the new Republican party was on its way. Good for them. But I doubt that the hapless Dems will ever have the strength to go back to believing in and standing for something.

Kerry, my ass. He's a goner. And good riddance I say.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I read that they brought on some of Clinton's ex staffers Doc.

-Colly

Yeah. I also heard that, before he had his recent surgery, Clinton told Kerry that if he wanted to win he had to start talking about issues.

Honestly, it's difficult to convey what a breath of fresh air I thought it was to hear Kerry finally say "Look, this emperor doesn't have any clothes on. Things are not all beer and skittles in Iraq." and have the media jump all over it like it was news. If nothing else, shouldn't a national election at least offer an opportunity for policy review and opinion?

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

I agree with Black S about turnout. That's one problem with polls that simply ask about candidates "Who is strong?" etc. A poll has to figure 'likely voters,' and also deal with the 'I won't tell' group, some of who will vote, some not.

I agree with mab about issues, up to a point. But you see Bush is simply pounding on one nail, "Resolute leader, who's been and is keeping America safe." As odd and unbelievable as that is, it's the Republicans' 'on message.' It's reinforced by images, innuendos, etc. Anyone seen the ad of Kerry windsurfing?

What images are the dems using to show Iraq is fuck up and breeding ground, and the Taliban are regrouping in Afgh'n?
They should be publicizing the "Mission Accomplished" photo-op and a ticker counting deaths in the field, etc.

 

[shereads]

I'm glad Kerry's people have decided to add some substance to the campaign. But I can't help remembering the outraged gasps from both parties when Howard Dean said the same things.

No, America isn't safer with Saddam Hussein out of power.

No, Saddam Hussein is not the friend of Islamic extremists.



Dean's problem must have been that the truth just seemed too true when he said it. Or maybe his timing was bad. Maybe we were supposed to wait for the body count to reach 1000 before criticizing the war.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm glad Kerry's people have decided to add some substance to the campaign. But I can't help remembering the outraged gasps from both parties when Howard Dean said the same things.

No, America isn't safer with Saddam Hussein out of power.

No, Saddam Hussein is not the friend of Islamic extremists.



Dean's problem must have been that the truth just seemed too true when he said it. Or maybe his timing was bad. Maybe we were supposed to wait for the body count to reach 1000 before criticizing the war.

When Dean spoke no one was ready to hear what he had to say. A year ago it still seemed like we might be able to pull Iraq out of the fire, and I think the public really wanted to believe that and so was willing to gove the administration the benefit of the doubt.

Things have gotten steadily worse, however, and we’re now much less in control of Iraq territory and Iraqi hearts and minds then we were back then when Dean was talking. This is entirely due to mismanagement of reconstruction and attempts to sweep the whole mess under the rug and minimize the war's political impact in the US. Any way you slice it, Iraq was an enormous error in policy-making and carried out with truly stunning incompetence, and there’s simply no way to hide the fact. (Remember the general who was fired for suggesting that we needed more troops over there?)

This morning, Yahoo had an AP headline saying, “Bush Twists Kerry’s Words On Iraq”. Personally, I can’t ever remember a President being publicly accused of “twisting” someone’s words. Disputing, yes. Rebuffing or denying, yes. The implications here are pretty amazing, I think. It looks like the news media, at least, might be ready to take a hard look at what’s going on in Iraq and hold this administration’s feet to the fire.

The administration is also at odds about how in the world they’re going to pull off the upcoming Iraqi election. With at least a half dozen major cities under control of the insurgents, there’s no way you can hold a fair election there, and yet there’s no way to proceed without including them. We’re not about to send our troops in to retake these towns in what everyone admits will be a very bloody battle right on the eve of our own national elections, so I suspect they’ll cobble together some sort of face-saving compromise. The insurgents are not political entities, so you can’t bargain with them. I don’t know what we’ll do.

The final thing is the economy. Despite the latest figures, I think most people gauge the economy based on how they’re doing personally, and how the people around them are doing, and things are not really getting better. As they say, when you’re unemployed, the local unemployment rate in 100%, no matter what the Department of Labor says. Most people don’t give a damn about the deficit, but when coupled with this painfully weak recovery, people notice, and that can’t be good for W.

---dr.M.

 

[Couture]

Re: I'll bet you anything

that Bush will have an easy advantage of at least 40 electors when the beans are counted.

The Democratic party is made up of a bunch of spineless wimps who deserve to have their butts kicked. If they can't stand for anything, then "4 more years" is what we'll inevitably get. Kerry actually makes Bush look good (well, as good as he can ever look anyway)! It's mind-boggling but what can you do?

The Democrats need a Barry Goldwater. He got swept by Johnson in 64. And yet, within three years, an inspired Ronald Reagan took California and the new Republican party was on its way. Good for them. But I doubt that the hapless Dems will ever have the strength to go back to believing in and standing for something.

Kerry, my ass. He's a goner. And good riddance I say.

We've already had our Barry Goldwater, and his name is Howard Dean. I'm out here in red state land, as a first time politically involved person, busting ass...registering voters...and contributing what money I can spare.

As I said, I'm out here on the street in red state land. I don't know who does those polls or how they are done. The only thing I know is there are lots of people who've never voted before, and who are registering to vote in this election. These people are registering for the very purpose of sending George Bush back to Texas.

These polls...do they show that the Kerry campaign has out raised the Bush campaign since the primaries? These are not big donations from Halliburton either....these are little tiny donations from millions of Americans who see that we as a country are going in the wrong direction.

And if Bush is so popular, why does he have to have Nader to help him? If he's so popular, why did more Americans vote for Gore? If he's so popular, why did his brother and Katherine Harris have to bury thousands of black votes so that Bush could take Florida?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

When Dean spoke no one was ready to hear what he had to say. A year ago it still seemed like we might be able to pull Iraq out of the fire, and I think the public really wanted to believe that and so was willing to gove the administration the benefit of the doubt.

Things have gotten steadily worse, however, and we’re now much less in control of Iraq territory and Iraqi hearts and minds then we were back then when Dean was talking. This is entirely due to mismanagement of reconstruction and attempts to sweep the whole mess under the rug and minimize the war's political impact in the US. Any way you slice it, Iraq was an enormous error in policy-making and carried out with truly stunning incompetence, and there’s simply no way to hide the fact. (Remember the general who was fired for suggesting that we needed more troops over there?)

This morning, Yahoo had an AP headline saying, “Bush Twists Kerry’s Words On Iraq”. Personally, I can’t ever remember a President being publicly accused of “twisting” someone’s words. Disputing, yes. Rebuffing or denying, yes. The implications here are pretty amazing, I think. It looks like the news media, at least, might be ready to take a hard look at what’s going on in Iraq and hold this administration’s feet to the fire.

The administration is also at odds about how in the world they’re going to pull off the upcoming Iraqi election. With at least a half dozen major cities under control of the insurgents, there’s no way you can hold a fair election there, and yet there’s no way to proceed without including them. We’re not about to send our troops in to retake these towns in what everyone admits will be a very bloody battle right on the eve of our own national elections, so I suspect they’ll cobble together some sort of face-saving compromise. The insurgents are not political entities, so you can’t bargain with them. I don’t know what we’ll do.

The final thing is the economy. Despite the latest figures, I think most people gauge the economy based on how they’re doing personally, and how the people around them are doing, and things are not really getting better. As they say, when you’re unemployed, the local unemployment rate in 100%, no matter what the Department of Labor says. Most people don’t give a damn about the deficit, but when coupled with this painfully weak recovery, people notice, and that can’t be good for W.

---dr.M.

There are a lot of issues where Bush is highly vulnerable. You just have to talk about them. the only real question, is with six weeks to go, can you talk about them enough to make the difference?

-Colly

 

[hiddenself]

Why?

Originally posted by Couture
We've already had our Barry Goldwater, and his name is Howard Dean.

Not so. Dean got ~15% support in the party. He never got nominated. He will NOT stand up and hold the banner, challenge those right-wing ideologues. He will not pound his fist, raise his voice, take a stand. Good, bad, or ugly. Not Dean.

Kerry is the nominee. Kerry will take a stand? Right.

Kerry would still vote the same way for Iraq. He's said so. But he would do things "differently." Is this the Dean position you think?

Bush is delaying the Iraq transition because of instability? Kerry shouts that's unacceptable, that it should be done immediately. Bush is insisting on the Iraq election taking place on time in spite of instability? Kerry says that that's not right, that the election should be delayed. He's just a joke.

Kerry signed a big fat blank check to Bush and would do so again. He's said so. Yeah, Mr President, Sir, here, uhm, run up a half-trillion deficit in a couple of years, give billions of dollars to your buddies without any oversight. Sure, you got my vote. But, hey, look here, Sir, you're not doing things right, see? Let me do it. Pretty please? I can do things very differently. Right.

Bush lifts steel tariffs (they should never have been imposed in the first place and we were picking a nasty trade war over them). Kerry goes to Ohio and West Virginia and says, hey, here's proof that this Bush guy is irresponsible and does not care. I would do things differently. Huh? How? Kerry did exactly the same pathetic song-and-dance over NAFTA. Is this principled thinking or blatantly politically expedient posturing you think?

Kerry is a supporter of gay rights, but hey, no gay marriage, no sir. Give them civil unions, see? But then again, let the states decide. Yes. If they want to allow them, fine; if not, that's fine too. Quite a principled guy. Imagine JFK and Bobby Kennedy doing the same thing with civil rights? Hey, if Massachusetts wants to allow negros into THEIR universities, it's their business. But hey, leave the federal government out of it. Let Old Miss be pure, let those good 'ol boys do things as they see fit, keep those negros in their places in their states. Very principled.

Kerry is the nominee. He has no real plan for Iraq, no real plan for the economy, no real plan for health care. He is just someone who will do things NOT the way Bush is. And that's his message.

Originally posted by Couture
These people are registering for the very purpose of sending George Bush back to Texas.

And that's exactly the point. The motivation is to get rid of Bush--NOT to support Kerry. That's not saying much about the Dems' appeal. They have none. Cause they don't represent anything any more.

Originally posted by Couture
And if Bush is so popular, why does he have to have Nader to help him? If he's so popular, why did more Americans vote for Gore?

Nader? It's about a little thing called democracy. Pluralism. Freedom of expression. The right (and responsibility) to stand for your convictions. If you have any, that is.

And it's the Democrats who are playing dirty tricks to keep Nader (and anyone else who might offer a more principled alternative) off the ballot. It's the same argument Bush uses--either with us, or against us. Crap.

Bush is not "so popular." He simply represents an ideology that is big in conservative states in the South and the Midwest.
Religion is part of who we are and our God is greatest.
Abortion is repulsive. Death penalty is right and just.
Sex is filthy.
The flag is sacred.
Texas-style shoot-em-up is the right fate for whoever disagrees with us. Or a bombing raid. Or a nuke.
Texas-style laissez-faire is the right way of life. If you're powerful and rich and connected, good for you--you deserve all the spoils you can get. If you're poor or sick or marginalized or down on your luck, tough--your problem, buddy, don't come to me for any help.
Money talks. Social services and the environment and the arts and other such touchy-feely things are for sissies.
Oh, and tax cuts for the rich are the solution to everything.

It may be an ideology that I abhor, but it does represent a large segment (though not the majority, IMO) of the populace.

Kerry is lifeless. He's hemmed and hawed for just about everything in his recent political life. He has no ideology. He's entirely sold out to being a career politician. His kind have allowed the extreme religio-conservative ideology to take the upper hand in the US. His kind are largely responsible for the turn of the country to the right. His kind and their lack of vision and alternatives.

Lots of sane people might find Bush scary. But why would anyone find Kerry appealing?