Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (84102)	11/5/2004 2:55:49 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793912

POWERLINE - Democratic spin For almost two days, I've been hearing Democrats complain that President Bush was re-elected because of moral issues, which, they say, is code for anti-gay sentiment. I don't doubt that moral issues, including the attempt of courts to impose gay marriage, played a role in the election, as they should have. But I'm not buying the idea that the president owes his re-election to anti-gay marriage sentiment. Consider first that Republicans have been winning congressional races for a decade now without relying, generally speaking, on gay issues or, for that matter, social issues (it started with the Contract with America, which did not focus on such issues). Second, Republicans have been electing more than their fair share of presidents for a quarter of a century without talking about gay rights. To be sure, we were told that Nixon won because he used crime as a code word for racism, and that the first Bush won because of Willie Horton. But to me this is proof of Democratic cluelessness, not Republican reliance on moral demagoguery. Now consider Tuesday's election. President Bush had a job approval rating of essentially 50 percent. He collected 51 percent of the popular vote. Does the gay marriage issue explain why he captured that extra one percent? Perhaps. But isn't it equally plausible to attribute this increment to the fact that Americans were not comfortable with John Kerry as a war time leader? Does gay marriage explain Bush's approval rating? I doubt it. Bush has proposed a constitutional amendment on the subject, but it hasn't been a prominent part of his presidency and it's not going anywhere. I submit that the approval rating has much more to do with tax cuts, surging employment figures, the response to 9/11, and the absence of subsequent terrorist attacks. Indeed, the 50 percent approval figure is pretty consistent with a blend of the poll data regarding approval of his handling of the economy, the war on terror, and Iraq. Again, I'm not denying that moral issues played a role on Tuesday. But it strikes as misleading and unfair to elevate it the way Democrats are doing, and to reduce these issues to court-imposed gay marriage, and that issue to gay bashing. Whenever a party loses a presidential election, there are recriminations against the wing of the party that produced the losing candidate. If the candidate was a centrist in the context of the party, the more extreme wing of the party argues that the candidate lost because he couldn't energize the party base. Examples include Nixon in 1960, Humphrey in 1968, and Bush in 1992. If the candidate was from the hard left or right, the centrists argue that candidate lost because he was out of touch mainstream voters. Examples are Goldwater in 1964, McGovern in 1972, and Dukakis in 1988. These kinds of arguments are more self-serving than enlightening. A presidential election is usually a referendum on the economy and, where applicable, the incumbent party's handling of a war of serious security threat. Nonetheless, it is natural that the arguments are made, and they almost always are. What's intriguing about this year's version of the blame ritual is that the Democrats can't seem to figure out which portion of the party their losing candidate represented. It shouldn't be that difficult to discern. John Kerry is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. No one in public office has been a more consistent and longstanding opponent of U.S. military action and preparedness. Admittedly, he gave a little ground during the election to spare his party from the trouncing he was nominated (instead of Dean) to avoid. But to suggest, as many Democratic leftists including Kos are doing, that the election was lost because the Democrats failed to nominate a leftist is absurd. Kerry may have been presented as a moderate alternative to Dean, but this was mostly a matter of cosmetics. In any event that status would not render Kerry other than a leftist. It reminds me of the child psychologist who postulated that babies are born with the innate ability to swim. When he threw a one-month old in the water, and the baby sank, the professor concluded that he should have tested the baby earlier.

To: LindyBill who wrote (84102)	11/5/2004 3:51:01 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793912

LOL! An excellent case of projecting one's faults onto their perceived enemies. Not only is Bush evil, but anyone who voted for him is too. Gotta run now. My bloodlust has the better part of me & reading this thread has lessened my ignorance - must - satisfy - my - deep - desire - for - both - must - attend - church - then - kill - me - somebody. <gg>

To: LindyBill who wrote (84102)	11/5/2004 4:55:56 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793912

Well, let's see. Jane Smiley describes the people who voted for Bush thusly: ...greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority. ...they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence ...they prefer to be ignorant ...they are virtually unteachable. ...the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know ...and finishes it off with ... They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. I guess this is the liberal way of reaching out to President Bush to form a concensus. She, Krugman, Helen Thomas, and a few others remind me of the song in South Pacific, "you have to be taught to hate." I kind of wonder where, and how, totally intolerant people like this ever learned it.