Also, something else to consider, as I was listening to the announcers Tues. night, the ONLY state to change sides between 2000, and 2004, was New Hampshire. Don't recall hearing or seeing this sort of map then.... And if the Democratic supports want to be humbled, check out maps of county by county majorities. Have not seen one for 04 yet, but the 2000 map basically showed that something like 75-80% of the counties in the US voted for Bush. The Democrats have specifically used the cities to garner support for the last 3-4 presidential elections, something the electoral college is specifically designed to prevent or at least balance.
something the electoral college is specifically designed to prevent or at least balance.
Not really. The electoral college is designed to balance between states. Not urban/rural within a state.
Have not seen one for 04 yet, but the 2000 map basically showed that something like 75-80% of the counties in the US voted for Bush.
That's right. But it's worth remembering that most people don't live in most counties. I was actually going over several of the swing states with a fine-toothed comb. You'll see a big wash of counties colored red on the map, with a couple of islands of blue. When you check out the actual populations of the regions depicted, it's things like one thousand people in a red county (seriously) next to 100,000 people in a blue county. If don't know if the nifty county maps at cnn.com are still up, but you might check them out.
In any event, the electoral college doesn't do anything about that, really, when it's intra-state instead of inter-state.
Yes, those blue islands, are called big cities. That's where most of the democratic support is coming from these days. I just counted up the number of states that Kerry won. He earned 18-20, out of 50 states. He basically won the NE seaboard, and west coast. With the exception of the smaller NE states, most of them have fairly high electoral counts. These are the current targets of the Democratic party, the large cities, and thus the high value electoral states. But, its like playing Risk, and targetting Europe, or Asia, only to find out while you did so, your oppenents took the rest of the board. Nice starting impact, but most of the time, you lose in the end. I just checked out the county results on CNN, New England states are the only ones which had a majority of counties vote for Kerry. My comment about electoral college was more, that its in place to prevent someone from targetting 3-5 states, and winning the election based on just those few states. Which kinda seems to be the current Democratic strategy.
Well, the current Democratic strategy seems to be to appeal to people's better natures and sense of reason. I'd like to admire it, but it doesn't seem to be terribly effective.
When the opposition's offer is "Vote for us and we'll let you persecute a minority!" it's really hard to fight that if, as seems to be the case, a whole lot of people want to persecute a minority more than they want anything else.
In all honesty, neither side of this election used reason. Both sides attempted to use either fear(Republicans), or hatred(Democrats). In the 20 or so years that I can kinda remember presidential elections, this is the first time I didn't know a candidates basic stance on major issues until the very last week. Up until late summer, Kerry was all about Vietnam, afterwards, the only real message I heard from his campaign was "I have a plan, and its better than Bush's." The problem was, I never heard any details about these plans. Kerry seemed to not want to place his ideas into a public forum for debate. The few, the very few ideas he did mention, to my opinion were hare-brained crackpot ideas. (Government sponsored socialized medicine, but somehow, with no government controls?? Not possible. Believe that was brought up in 3rd debate?) (Poll taking of US allies and UN when it comes to US national/international policy. Sorry, but I'm not about to let France/Germany have a say in our policies, given the things they have done in recent years.) While I'm sure alot of these ideas and organizations were not officially sponsored or supported by the national Democratic organization, I'm fairly confident that they were at lower levels. Moveon.org, Michael Moore, the entire Anyone But Bush movement, etc etc. These were blatant appeals to mockery and hatred of Bush. Not saying he didnt deserve some of it, but not to the levels I've seen persist across the months. Some of the attacks were clearly not thought out. The 7 minutes after the first plane? We have hundreds of federal agencies with contigency plans and methods for dealing with disasters like this. At that time, nobody had any idea there were more planes, nobody. Bush had nothing to input at that point, and would have only distracted the people whose job it was to deal with the attack. Instead, he spent 7 minutes, giving a young girl the memory of a lifetime, and attempting to prevent widespread panic in the first few minutes. (Opinion, so feel free to tear apart, but Moore's and Laden's interpretations are not the only ones available) As far as Vietnam, I've heard that during this time, his father was head of the CIA. I don't think it was possible for him to have served in Vietnam, even if he had wanted to. (No, I dont think he did) Do you really want the son of the head of CIA, captured and held for political leverage? The funny thing is, I've never heard any of these arguements, or even discussions about the possibility of them. They cast Bush into a more favorable light, and thus to be cast out from the minds of the pure. (or something, I dunno)Anyways, I'm starting to ramble here, my point is, there was very little reason used in this election by the Democrates, thier primary appeal was to hatred and anger. (Not saying the Republican's use much either.)
**Disclaimer** Some of this is pure conjuncture, I have no evidence or proof to back them up. They are simply different interpretations on commonly known situations. They are there to make you rethink some of messages that you have been subjected to over the course of this election. And finally, please note, I made NO attempt to defend anything in, or about Iraq :/
You know, someone who starts off by equating hatred and Democrats is so biased to have already lost, in my opinion, but what the heck, I'm bored.
Kerry's critics were all about Vietnam. Kerry was talking about his plan for a stronger America.
Kerry spoke frequently about his plans in speeches, in his television commercials and in the debates. They were easily reviewed on his campaign's web site. Every now and then, the media would talk about something other than his love of windsurfing to give a few. I suggest that you weren't listening as carefully as you could have been.
Government sponsored medicine? That assertion alone proves you weren't listening to anyone other than the RNC.
Poll taking? Ditto. Kerry said plenty of times that he would not let any other nation have a say in our defense.
There was plenty of low-level mockery of Georgie. There was also plenty of low-level mockery and outright slander of Senator Kerry. Proves nothing, other than maybe you think it's okay when Republicans do it. (I do agree that the "7 minutes" issue was a tad overplayed. The "6 hours" that followed, not to mention the previous month and half, wasn't, however.)
When Georgie was in the National Guard, his father was a U.S. Congressman. George H.W. Bush didn't become directory of the CIA until 1976, three years after Georgie had been prematurely discharged and four after had last flown a plane for America.
Re: the first bit : the author of this is a good friend of mine and he's not equating Democrats with overall hatred, just hatred of Bush. Just to clarify for him... He can do the rest. ;)
I assumed that's what he was attempting to imply. There's little justification for claiming the Democratic candidates and supporters used hatred, except for a few notable gadflies that generally supported Kerry. There's plenty of documented evidence that the Republican candidates themselves used fear as a tactic.
Ok, my apologies to Juldea for putting such a long quote into her LJ, but I didn't cut out anything so that nothing is taken out of context. *edit* have to cut some to comply with LJ limits on post lenght.
" KERRY: Well, two leading national news networks have both said the president's characterization of my health-care plan is incorrect. One called it fiction. The other called it untrue.
The fact is that my health-care plan, America, is very simple. It gives you the choice. I don't force you to do anything. It's not a government plan. The government doesn't require you to do anything. You choose your doctor. You choose your plan.
*cut*
Here's what I do: We take over Medicaid children from the states so that every child in America is covered. And in exchange, if the states want to -- they're not forced to, they can choose to -- they cover individuals up to 300 percent of poverty. It's their choice.
I think they'll choose it, because it's a net plus of $5 billion to them.
We allow you -- if you choose to, you don't have to -- but we give you broader competition to allow you to buy into the same health care plan that senators and congressmen give themselves. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for every American. I believe that your health care is just as important as any politician in Washington, D. C.
You want to buy into it, you can. We give you broader competition. That helps lower prices.
In addition to that, we're going to allow people 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare early. And most importantly, we give small business a 50 percent tax credit so that after we lower the costs of health care, they also get, whether they're self-employed or a small business, a lower cost to be able to cover their employees.
*cut*
BUSH: *cut* Anyway, let me quote the Lewin report. The Lewin report is a group of folks who are not politically affiliated. They analyzed the senator's plan. It cost $1.2 trillion.
*cut*
It's estimated that 8 million people will go from private insurance to government insurance.
We have a fundamental difference of opinion. I think government- run health will lead to poor-quality health, will lead to rationing, will lead to less choice.
Once a health-care program ends up in a line item in the federal government budget, it leads to more controls.
And just look at other countries that have tried to have federally controlled health care. They have poor-quality health care.
*cut* SCHIEFFER: Senator?
KERRY: The president just said that government-run health care results in poor quality.
Now, maybe that explains why he hasn't fully funded the VA and the VA hospital is having trouble and veterans are complaining. Maybe that explains why Medicare patients are complaining about being pushed off of Medicare. He doesn't adequately fund it.
But let me just say to America: I am not proposing a government-run program. That's not what I have. I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Senators and congressmen have a wide choice. Americans ought to have it too.
This was taken from the 3rd debate. I don't believe you can have something government sponsored, without having gradually increasing government control. It just doesn't happen.
I found this quote in the 1st debate, and it appears that Republicans did take it somewhat out of context, but by far, not the worse case I've ever seen. "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Finally, I did not say Democrats=hatred. I said they used hatred. The tone and method of the mockery indicated much stronger emotions, and this is where I drew my conclusions from. Incidentally, I think Republicans hate Bill Clinton in much of the same fashion, so Democrats do not have a monopoly on hatred.
So, let's see, Kerry says outright that his plan wouldn't have been government run--except for a few parts that already are--and would have provided an option to the several states to add more people currenlty in dire straits to the program so that they can get health coverage. And he would have allowed people to buy into the insurance-company run programs provided to federal employees today, if they want to, and would have provided a tax credit to small businesses trying to provide insurance-company run programs to their employees so that they can buy into it.
Where's the "government sponsored socialized medicine" (your words) part? I've got friends in Canada and know people working in the hospital system in Buffalo. They know what government sponsored socialized medicine can be like. This ain't it. Calling it that is pure RNC spin.
I don't believe you can have something government sponsored, without having gradually increasing government control.
And this is bad, why? In the general case? The government sponsors fertility by giving a bounty of $3100 per kid. But do people call that governement sponsored socialized breeding?
----
Republicans hate Bill Clinton in much of the same fashion, so Democrats do not have a monopoly on hatred.
Ah, here I assumed you were talking about the candidates and not individuals. (The Republican presidential candidates and the RNC routinely used fear as a tactic, so you can see where I misunderstood your point.) Yes, hatred of Bill Clinton (and his wife) was deep, widespread and irrational. The man hadn't even done anything yet and the Clinton Death List was already circulating. Hatred of Georgie, near as I can tell, was inspired by Republican recount suppression tactics, job losses, attacks on civil liberties and a unilateral invasion impatiently started with a shaky justification that has cost over 1000 lives.
Ok, government sponsored, tends to lead to government control. As Bush said, it'a a line item on the national budget. The question in my mind, is not what Kerry's vision or even if this does follow his vision initially. Where will it be in 20-30 years? Social Security was not originally intended to be a government subsidized retirement fund. I wanna see YOU go down to Florida and try to explain that to all the old folks. We'll stand by with paramedics ;)
The Florida reelection mess, was ugly. Both sides were guilty of pretty much the same things. Just about anything the Democrats accuse the Republicans of, they were guilty of themselves. (This will prob start another post, but what the hell.)
Job loss. Yeah, after the Dot.com bust, 9/11, and the Enron and other corperate scandals, I would have been amazed if there hadn't been any job losses. National level economics is above my head, but I think Bush chose a healthy long term recovery, over a short term fix. Incidentally, I was reading an editoral right before the election, that stated that Clinton was reelected under a higher unemployment rate. Civil liberties. That's an issue that kinda sways with the political winds, and varies depending on which decade we are in. After 9/11, only a fool would not have expected to lose some privacy and or other freedoms. Bush administration may have gone to far, I'm not wise, or familiar enough with the Patriot Act to truely make that call. Iraq. Yes, in hindsight, this was probably a mistake. However, it was a mistake made by both sides. (Kerry voted for it and pubicly supported it) Judge a decision, based on the information available at the time. Don't use hindsight to claim someone is a bad leader. You can say they made a mistake, but it's not a reflection on that person's leadership abilities. Refusal to admit a mistake, is a reflection on a person. And yes, I realize Bush has failed miserably here. Lastly, just so you kind of understand where I actually stand. I do not think Bush is a good president. If the democrats had provided a good candidate, I would have probably voted against Bush. Kerry did not give me enough evidence that he would be a better president. I saw this election as a choice between the lesser of two evils, and I favored Bush.
Okay, you repeated my question without answering it and now want to know what the vision was. Simple: Kerry's plan would have made more Americans who are on the margins today eligible for Medicare and would have offered more Americans who are not insured today a chance to join a relatively low-cost plan. But, if you're starting from the basis of "Government Plan A turned into something I don't like, therefore every Government Plan (as long as Democrats propose it) will turn into something I don't like" then there really isn't anything more I can say to explain it.
But, frankly, I think Georgie's HSA plan is going to be a nightmare: I already play deductable roulette with my HCRA. I've lost money 6 years out of 9 that would have gone better into my pocket and the only reason I got on the treadmill is that the deductables rose in my dental plan rose so high that it made it stupid not to at least try to put some money away. Fortunately, I'm a relatively well paid white-collar worker and a so losing a few hundred every year doesn't bother me that much. But I'd hate to think of what a family of six is going to have to do to figure out how much to salt away in their HSA instead of buying milk. Right now, my co-payments are $20 a pop. If they rose to $100 or $200 a pop, or even more, I'd think three or four times about routine dental cleanings and whether or not my toe really is broken.
---
My point in raising the several issues was to answer your assertion that Republicans and their supporters hated Bill Clinton in the same way that Democrats and their supporters have learned to hate Georgie. People hated Bill Clinton for who he was; people hate Georgie for what he did. Georgie had every opportunity to find compromise, bipartisanship and admit mistakes. He didn't.
Kerry would not have been my choice normally, either. But it is our solemn duty as citizens to judge the man in the chair not by his vision for the next four years, but by what he's done, what he's promised to do, what he failed to do and what, if anything, he's held people accountable for, not to just sit back and say, in the words of an elderly woman I heard on a talk show, "Well I don't know about all that, all I know is that George Bush is the nicer man and that's why I support him."
OK, we can both argue this into the ground for the next 4 years. Why don't we steal a line from another thread here, and agree to disagree. Maybe someday we'll run into each other in RL, and can argue politics until 4am or something. Until such a time, why don't we give Juldea her LJ back? ;) (And yes, I'm specifically refraining from answering any of your points, since that would just drag this out even more.)
While they don't campaign exclusively in large cities, thier primary messages are catered towards residents of cities. Most of the minority issues tend to be based in cities, simply because of where people live. You don't give a speech about raising the education levels of inner cities, to a bunch of primarily white farmers in Kansas. (I'm not trying to attack or defend the right/wrong of such issues, just using one as an example of cultural indifference.)
So you're saying that Democrats campaign exclusively to minorities? That may be true for local elections but certainly wasn't the case in the presidential election.
Exclusively? No. I would go so far as to say that a lot of thier overall platforms do favor minorities (not just racial). For presidential elections, both sides attempt to moderate thier beliefs to match as much of the middle as possible.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 4 Nov 2004 15:00 (UTC)no subject
on 4 Nov 2004 17:51 (UTC)Not really. The electoral college is designed to balance between states. Not urban/rural within a state.
Have not seen one for 04 yet, but the 2000 map basically showed that something like 75-80% of the counties in the US voted for Bush.
That's right. But it's worth remembering that most people don't live in most counties. I was actually going over several of the swing states with a fine-toothed comb. You'll see a big wash of counties colored red on the map, with a couple of islands of blue. When you check out the actual populations of the regions depicted, it's things like one thousand people in a red county (seriously) next to 100,000 people in a blue county. If don't know if the nifty county maps at cnn.com are still up, but you might check them out.
In any event, the electoral college doesn't do anything about that, really, when it's intra-state instead of inter-state.
no subject
on 4 Nov 2004 21:23 (UTC)no subject
on 4 Nov 2004 22:24 (UTC)When the opposition's offer is "Vote for us and we'll let you persecute a minority!" it's really hard to fight that if, as seems to be the case, a whole lot of people want to persecute a minority more than they want anything else.
no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 07:45 (UTC)no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 08:59 (UTC)While I'm sure alot of these ideas and organizations were not officially sponsored or supported by the national Democratic organization, I'm fairly confident that they were at lower levels. Moveon.org, Michael Moore, the entire Anyone But Bush movement, etc etc. These were blatant appeals to mockery and hatred of Bush. Not saying he didnt deserve some of it, but not to the levels I've seen persist across the months. Some of the attacks were clearly not thought out. The 7 minutes after the first plane? We have hundreds of federal agencies with contigency plans and methods for dealing with disasters like this. At that time, nobody had any idea there were more planes, nobody. Bush had nothing to input at that point, and would have only distracted the people whose job it was to deal with the attack. Instead, he spent 7 minutes, giving a young girl the memory of a lifetime, and attempting to prevent widespread panic in the first few minutes. (Opinion, so feel free to tear apart, but Moore's and Laden's interpretations are not the only ones available) As far as Vietnam, I've heard that during this time, his father was head of the CIA. I don't think it was possible for him to have served in Vietnam, even if he had wanted to. (No, I dont think he did) Do you really want the son of the head of CIA, captured and held for political leverage?
The funny thing is, I've never heard any of these arguements, or even discussions about the possibility of them. They cast Bush into a more favorable light, and thus to be cast out from the minds of the pure. (or something, I dunno)Anyways, I'm starting to ramble here, my point is, there was very little reason used in this election by the Democrates, thier primary appeal was to hatred and anger. (Not saying the Republican's use much either.)
**Disclaimer** Some of this is pure conjuncture, I have no evidence or proof to back them up. They are simply different interpretations on commonly known situations. They are there to make you rethink some of messages that you have been subjected to over the course of this election. And finally, please note, I made NO attempt to defend anything in, or about Iraq :/
no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 13:11 (UTC)no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 14:21 (UTC)no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 14:38 (UTC)no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 14:30 (UTC)*edit* have to cut some to comply with LJ limits on post lenght.
" KERRY: Well, two leading national news networks have both said the president's characterization of my health-care plan is incorrect. One called it fiction. The other called it untrue.
The fact is that my health-care plan, America, is very simple. It gives you the choice. I don't force you to do anything. It's not a government plan. The government doesn't require you to do anything. You choose your doctor. You choose your plan.
*cut*
Here's what I do: We take over Medicaid children from the states so that every child in America is covered. And in exchange, if the states want to -- they're not forced to, they can choose to -- they cover individuals up to 300 percent of poverty. It's their choice.
I think they'll choose it, because it's a net plus of $5 billion to them.
We allow you -- if you choose to, you don't have to -- but we give you broader competition to allow you to buy into the same health care plan that senators and congressmen give themselves. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for every American. I believe that your health care is just as important as any politician in Washington, D. C.
You want to buy into it, you can. We give you broader competition. That helps lower prices.
In addition to that, we're going to allow people 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare early. And most importantly, we give small business a 50 percent tax credit so that after we lower the costs of health care, they also get, whether they're self-employed or a small business, a lower cost to be able to cover their employees.
*cut*
BUSH: *cut* Anyway, let me quote the Lewin report. The Lewin report is a group of folks who are not politically affiliated. They analyzed the senator's plan. It cost $1.2 trillion.
*cut*
It's estimated that 8 million people will go from private insurance to government insurance.
We have a fundamental difference of opinion. I think government- run health will lead to poor-quality health, will lead to rationing, will lead to less choice.
Once a health-care program ends up in a line item in the federal government budget, it leads to more controls.
And just look at other countries that have tried to have federally controlled health care. They have poor-quality health care.
*cut*
SCHIEFFER: Senator?
KERRY: The president just said that government-run health care results in poor quality.
Now, maybe that explains why he hasn't fully funded the VA and the VA hospital is having trouble and veterans are complaining. Maybe that explains why Medicare patients are complaining about being pushed off of Medicare. He doesn't adequately fund it.
But let me just say to America: I am not proposing a government-run program. That's not what I have. I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Senators and congressmen have a wide choice. Americans ought to have it too.
This was taken from the 3rd debate. I don't believe you can have something government sponsored, without having gradually increasing government control. It just doesn't happen.
I found this quote in the 1st debate, and it appears that Republicans did take it somewhat out of context, but by far, not the worse case I've ever seen.
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Both of these are taken from http://www.debates.org/pages/debtrans.html
Finally, I did not say Democrats=hatred. I said they used hatred. The tone and method of the mockery indicated much stronger emotions, and this is where I drew my conclusions from. Incidentally, I think Republicans hate Bill Clinton in much of the same fashion, so Democrats do not have a monopoly on hatred.
no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 15:22 (UTC)Where's the "government sponsored socialized medicine" (your words) part? I've got friends in Canada and know people working in the hospital system in Buffalo. They know what government sponsored socialized medicine can be like. This ain't it. Calling it that is pure RNC spin.
I don't believe you can have something government sponsored, without having gradually increasing government control.
And this is bad, why? In the general case? The government sponsors fertility by giving a bounty of $3100 per kid. But do people call that governement sponsored socialized breeding?
----
Republicans hate Bill Clinton in much of the same fashion, so Democrats do not have a monopoly on hatred.
Ah, here I assumed you were talking about the candidates and not individuals. (The Republican presidential candidates and the RNC routinely used fear as a tactic, so you can see where I misunderstood your point.) Yes, hatred of Bill Clinton (and his wife) was deep, widespread and irrational. The man hadn't even done anything yet and the Clinton Death List was already circulating. Hatred of Georgie, near as I can tell, was inspired by Republican recount suppression tactics, job losses, attacks on civil liberties and a unilateral invasion impatiently started with a shaky justification that has cost over 1000 lives.
Clearly much of the same fashion. Not. :-)
no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 16:04 (UTC)The Florida reelection mess, was ugly. Both sides were guilty of pretty much the same things. Just about anything the Democrats accuse the Republicans of, they were guilty of themselves. (This will prob start another post, but what the hell.)
Job loss. Yeah, after the Dot.com bust, 9/11, and the Enron and other corperate scandals, I would have been amazed if there hadn't been any job losses. National level economics is above my head, but I think Bush chose a healthy long term recovery, over a short term fix. Incidentally, I was reading an editoral right before the election, that stated that Clinton was reelected under a higher unemployment rate.
Civil liberties. That's an issue that kinda sways with the political winds, and varies depending on which decade we are in. After 9/11, only a fool would not have expected to lose some privacy and or other freedoms. Bush administration may have gone to far, I'm not wise, or familiar enough with the Patriot Act to truely make that call.
Iraq. Yes, in hindsight, this was probably a mistake. However, it was a mistake made by both sides. (Kerry voted for it and pubicly supported it) Judge a decision, based on the information available at the time. Don't use hindsight to claim someone is a bad leader. You can say they made a mistake, but it's not a reflection on that person's leadership abilities. Refusal to admit a mistake, is a reflection on a person. And yes, I realize Bush has failed miserably here.
Lastly, just so you kind of understand where I actually stand. I do not think Bush is a good president. If the democrats had provided a good candidate, I would have probably voted against Bush. Kerry did not give me enough evidence that he would be a better president. I saw this election as a choice between the lesser of two evils, and I favored Bush.
no subject
on 6 Nov 2004 16:35 (UTC)But, frankly, I think Georgie's HSA plan is going to be a nightmare: I already play deductable roulette with my HCRA. I've lost money 6 years out of 9 that would have gone better into my pocket and the only reason I got on the treadmill is that the deductables rose in my dental plan rose so high that it made it stupid not to at least try to put some money away. Fortunately, I'm a relatively well paid white-collar worker and a so losing a few hundred every year doesn't bother me that much. But I'd hate to think of what a family of six is going to have to do to figure out how much to salt away in their HSA instead of buying milk. Right now, my co-payments are $20 a pop. If they rose to $100 or $200 a pop, or even more, I'd think three or four times about routine dental cleanings and whether or not my toe really is broken.
---
My point in raising the several issues was to answer your assertion that Republicans and their supporters hated Bill Clinton in the same way that Democrats and their supporters have learned to hate Georgie. People hated Bill Clinton for who he was; people hate Georgie for what he did. Georgie had every opportunity to find compromise, bipartisanship and admit mistakes. He didn't.
Kerry would not have been my choice normally, either. But it is our solemn duty as citizens to judge the man in the chair not by his vision for the next four years, but by what he's done, what he's promised to do, what he failed to do and what, if anything, he's held people accountable for, not to just sit back and say, in the words of an elderly woman I heard on a talk show, "Well I don't know about all that, all I know is that George Bush is the nicer man and that's why I support him."
no subject
on 7 Nov 2004 07:58 (UTC)no subject
on 8 Nov 2004 09:42 (UTC)no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 07:44 (UTC)no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 08:30 (UTC)no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 12:52 (UTC)no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 14:43 (UTC)no subject
on 5 Nov 2004 15:35 (UTC)But, guess which 2004 platform (DNC and RNC only) actually mentions minorities more often?