Hey, Adam --

when you claim is based on the fact that "Bush brought relatively innocuous moderates such as Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger and John McCain on board for the closing months of his campaign while keeping the likes of John Ashcroft and Newt Gingrich in the spotlight," you are basically saying that you were able to fool enough people about who you are to win an election. Nice going.

The amount of smearing orchestrated by Swift Boat Liars for Character Assassination, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove was helpful also. So it is actually is not true that "lies, scare tactics, pandering and trickery will lose to substance every day of the week." Here are two facts to consider:

1) Bush won by the slimmest percentage of the popular vote of any re-elected incumbent, and that is especially true of incumbents re-elected when the nation is at war.

2) More than 55-million US citizens told Bush they do not approve of his performance to date nor do they have confidence in his ability to lead them the next four years.

The far left is in the Green Party, Socialist Party, and other fringe parties. Congratulations on doing all you can to characterize the center-left as the far left. We can agree that the Republicans have done a great job of fooling a majority of the people. It sounds like that makes you very happy.

Say what you want, but this country is very divided and the great "uniter" has said he wants to try to bring it together. With people like you 'helping' him, he won't get far.

Adam:

I sure hope you are the first one to go when President Bush calls for the DRAFT.

What's all this talk of the draft, character assassination, etc.??? It's the same scare tactic crap that the American electorate saw right through during election season. Kerry didn't campaign on any platform except, "I'm not George Bush." Add the fact that he put that snake trial lawyer, John Edwards, on the ticket with him, and it's very easy to see why Kerry lost the election. Dems need to get over the fact that they lost and start looking for solutions instead of pointing out problems...that's the primary reason they lost, and will be the primary reason they lose again if it's not addressed.

"AN OPEN LETTER TO THE RED STATES/VOTERS

Now that the election is over, those of you in the Red States must recognize that you are surrounded to the north, east, and west by millions of people who seem dangerously different, and we are, for the most part. We are patriotic, although unarmed. We believe in a woman's right to choose, gay rights, and evolution. We love our traditional and non-traditional families, the earth, the separation of church and state and as a whole do not consider Iraqi children to be terrorists. But this letter is to assuage your fears and let you red state people know that you should consider this new topography as nothing more than a gentle embrace of blue, because we believe in democracy and are therefore content to allow you to live as you have voted.

We will sit calmly observing as your beloved Multi-National Corporations send your jobs abroad and dismantle your unions. We will support your choice to work with lower minimum wages, no benefits and no safety nets as Social Security is "renovated."

And don't worry about us getting in the way as you give away the environment to industry. We won't stop you from breathing sulfurous air, or washing down your mad cow beef and mercury tainted fish with polluted water. We will continue to provide you with our fad diets and exercise plans and you can continue to grow more obese and inert without affordable healthcare. You and your little ones can keep smoking, we promise.

You can also feel free to keep relaxing those gun laws. It is not our children who use assault weapons on each other in high schools. And do not waiver in your support for this war. We will watch as you offer up your young men and women to police oil production in Iraq. We understand that it may be the only way to pay for an education.

As for entertainment, we will continue to pay a premium for our own programming so that it may remain untouched as you turn the FCC into a wing of your churches. We make plenty off the remaining hundred million people who seek more than The Passion on DVD at Walmart or re-runs of "Davey and Goliath." And don't worry, we will not interfere with your insatiable appetite for pornography. Yes, we know all about that.

Now, about your undesirables. Whether it is your gay children running from an angry mob, minorities trying to succeed without legal protection or merely your underage daughters pregnant from rape, all will be treated as dissidents in the blue states, and be given the care that they seek at no charge to you.

We are giving you the next four years to continue your assault on humanism, compassion, and what the founders of this country referred to as "Enlightenment." We will watch you wage your holy war on science, technology, medicine, art, and free speech. Go ahead and secure your children a future filled with war, pollution, and poverty, we will sit calmly by and take care of our own. It's not that we don't care--it's just that finally, our bleeding hearts have hardened."

It's funny, really, to read that open letter. As a moderate Republican who would've voted for any real candidate the Dems would've put on the ticket, I find it humorous that you still haven't figured out why you lost the election. It's the "intellectually superior" attitude that reeks from your side of the aisle that is such a turnoff for moderates. Your never-wavering ability to paint all conservatives with a broad stroke as ignorant, country-Western listening, free-speech hating, racist, Bible-thumping, pickup truck driving, obese, gun-toting, uneducated hicks is astounding. That group of people represents about the same percentage of this country as the far left Green and Socialist parties. The rest of us have the gift of reason, and reasonably disagreed with John Kerry and the Democrats...deal with it!

Not trying to start a name-calling slugfest here, but could someone who voted for Bush articulate their reasoning for me.

As much as we here about the "anyone but bush" croud, all of the people I know that voted for Bush did so either because 1-he's not a democrat, or 2-he's pro-life. I know that there must be someone out there who can go beyond the straight party affiliation or single issue voting and really tell me what it is that made Bush the better choice for them.

Thanks in advance. Again, not trying to start a battle, just a political dialogue.
Jacob

Does it say something to anyone that in D.C., kerry won by such a huge percentage? It can be assumed it's a city that knows a lot about politics. Also, I was not aware that bush winning by 2 percent was "such an overwhelming victory". Also, 70 percent of the people who voted for Bush think that the US has "clear evidence" that saddam is involved in al qaida. Maybe you believe that too adam, and if so maybe you should stick to writing about things you actually know about-like money. If you don't like hearing liberals talk, then get out of our city dude.

Here's a big one...kind of along the lines of he's not a Democrat...but a bit different. I don't like social programs where they are today, I don't like how we have millions of people hooked on them who will likely never leave, and I believe John Kerry would have only added to that problem. We only promote dependency, we need to promote hard work and less complaining about how much life has been dead set against you. Complaining gets you just about no where.

I agree that Democrats had some failures with their message. But abandon the "Far Left"? Quick, name someone in the Far Left who has real political power in the Democratic party.

And I'm tired of this "liberal elitism" shit. Every day someone FOX talking head goes on TV and makes fun of liberals, MA, whatever, and no one bats an eye. Do you even see an elected Democratic official openly mock rural voters, or Southerers? Nope. Get over yourselves.

I agree that the Republican party has many members who do not well fit in the "social conservative" mode. As the poster above me asked, I am willing to hear your reasons for voting for Bush: on Iraq, the economy, whatever. Let's hear it.

I hope that you and all your little friends:
a) are signing up to join the army (you should support the things you vote for)
b) are never planning on having sex again cuz with Bush in charge, women are never going to be able to get birth control ever again (oh wait, who are we kidding, you probably giggle like a schoolgirl at even the thought)
c) are converting because our country is going to be overrun by christian values
d) your daddies are going to give you really good jobs when you graduate cuz the rest of us are gonna be screwed

I voted for Bush because Kerry is a douchebag. If you guys had run ANYONE with even a hint of a platform thought of with his own ideas (not taken from polls) I would have voted for him. WTG asshats.

Okay, that last post is the opposite of what I was looking for. I could just as easily argue, "Bush, is a bigger douchebag". We're not getting anywhere.

Thank you previous poster for the social programs comment. I cannot say that I agree with you, but I respect that you have an opinion outside of the "douchebag" argument.

I personally find it really discouraging that people believe that the poor just don't work hard. Yes, some people will be forever lazy. Buy to say that we shouldn't help 20 million people because 1 million will take it for granted doesn't sit well with me.

Let's hear some more on the issues,
Jacob

What issues? That Bush gave us his stance on them and Kerry didn't?

"Does it say something to anyone that in D.C., kerry won by such a huge percentage? It can be assumed it's a city that knows a lot about politics."

The above indicates that you know very little about DC demographics.

ps. DC also elected Barry to office.

The social program issue is valid. So consider this: It is an irrefutable fact that a person who has a baby in tow before the age of 18 and is also without at least a HS diploma is highly likely to be on --and stay on--welfare. Remember, this is not just one person, it is now 2 or 3 people. ONE (note that I said, "ONE" not "THE")answer to reducing welfare families is simple: quality academic and sex education and available birth control,(including abstinence discussions). Give young women an education and independence and the face of welfare could change within 5 years. Some people will still need social programs and the focus could be on them. Let the Christian right home-school their children and teach only abstinence, but let the rest of us focus on improving public education as a tool for reducing the welfare rolls.

"If you don't like hearing liberals talk, then get out of our city dude."

Maybe you should hunt the non-liberals down and send them to re-education camps, or perhaps a more "final solution" is in order?

"If you don't like hearing liberals talk, then get out of our city dude."

Maybe you should hunt the non-liberals down and send them to re-education camps, or perhaps a more "final solution" is in order?

For reasons I voted for Bush:

***

The alternative in November is the election of an ambiguist as president, who would weaken our purpose while enlivening the combative resources of a radical Islamic community that never rose up against the savagery of a great despot, and that now celebrates not those who put him away, but those who seek to emulate him. If you want passivity and wallowing in victim culture, the Dems will do. If you want to win this thing, Bush is the only guy running.

***

"The 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress, based on non-negotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women and private property and free speech and equal justice and religious tolerance."

***

Democrats for Bush "I will be one of the millions voting for Bush because I trust the president's judgment on the war on terror more than Kerry's. In this election, I am a single-issue voter. It is that simple."

***

David Broder, the Washington Post's moderately liberal columnist, refers to John Kerry as "a man whose habits of mind and of action are far removed from the challenges of the White House."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55778-2004Oct22.html
"I initially had many doubts about George W. Bush. Actually, that's not quite fair. The truth is, I despised the man. But then something happened."

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000108.html

***

Imagine FDR running a war with a press composed of cynical snickerers who derided the president as a rich old cripple who thought the best way to defeat Tojo was a war in North Africa and preached defeat every
day through the hard slog of the Pacific theater. Imagine running a war with an entertainment industry that declined to make a single movie about the conflict - why, imagine a "Casablanca" where Rick and Sam argue about whether America started it all because they didn't support the League of Nations. Imagine a popular radio drama running through the early 40s about a smart, charismatic, oh-so-intellectual Republican president whose bourbon baritone mocked FDR's patrician whine, a leader who took no guff from Stalin OR Hitler! Lux Soap brings you, The West Wing of the White House! Imagine Thomas Dewey's wife in 1944 callling the WW2 a war for oil; imagine former vice presidents insisting that FDR had played on our fears after Pearl Harbor. Imagine all that.

FDR won the 1944 election 25,602,504 votes to Dewey's 22,006,285. And this was almost two million votes less than he got in 1940. Did he fail to unify the country, if half the voters wanted someone else? Or is that just how we always are, more or less?

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/1004/102704.html

***

I wonder what sort of Democrats my neighbors are. Normal ordinary Democrats who want the best for everyone, and have come to the conclusion that higher taxes, more education spending, increased environmental regulation, more government involvement in health care, and greater integration into the European-led global order is the way to move us forward? Probably. But which ones are Michael-Moore fabulists, warmed-over Sixties sorts whose hearts hold a seething Chomskyite loathing for the West, and will countenance anything that rubs soot in our mad staring eyes? And by anything, of course we mean this sort of delightful commentary from the Guardian:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

A benevolent God, you see, would prefer Bush dead and Saddam in power. Once the article got out in the world, the editors sounded the retreat. Oh, you silly Yanks who took us seriously. Original article has been flushed down the memory hole.

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/1004/102504.html

***

The astonishing thing is that so many of our fellow Americans don't get it. The terrorists aren't committing their shrinking reserves because the outcome's a trivial matter. They recognize the magnitude of what we're helping the Iraqi people achieve.

This is the big one. The fate of a civilization hangs in the balance. And all we hear from one presidential contender is that it's the "wrong war, at the wrong time."

It's deja vu all over again. American troops are winning on the ground, but we are losing on the critical home front. And the man leading the effort to demoralize Americans and blind them to the success the military is enjoying is, once again, John Kerry.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008325.php

***
Here are a couple of links from factcheck.org regarding Kerry's do-nothing record in the Senate. He's been there 19 years and has litte to show for it.

***

Kerry Exaggerates Role in Some Key Legislative Battles

He says he "led the fight" on several fronts, but few bills bear his name.

http://www.factcheck.org/article134.html

***

Just How Many Bills Has Kerry Passed?
Bush said Kerry passed five bills. Kerry said he's passed 56. Who's right? That depends on the definition of "passed" and "bills."

http://www.factcheck.org/article282.html

For once, instead of pointing out everything wrong with the Replublicans, the Democrats should look at what is wrong with themselves in why they didn't win. But I know that's impossible, because the Democratic party is flawless.

How can you compare WWII to the war in Iraq?

Are you insane?

While I'm not single-issue voter, the economy is the primary reason I voted for Bush. I believe that money in people's pockets - especially business owners' pockets - is the way to fuel our economy. Rolling back tax cuts for corporations means taking money away from new job initiatives, keeps wages where they're at, and promotes jobs being exported to other countries. Kerry's tax plan was unacceptable in my eyes, and pushed me to vote for Bush.

Also, on the social front, Bush will not be able to deny a woman's right to choose "because he says so." As a social moderate, I didn't feel that the Bush administration posed much of a threat to our current rights and priveleges as citizens.

So from a social aspect, I felt there was very little threat posed by Bush, but from an economic standpoint, there was much to lose by going with Kerry.

I also agree with a previous poster on the issue of our social welfare state and its system of entitlements. Social security, in it's current form, will bankrupt our country and put an undue burden on our generation. It needs to be addressed - NOW!

People, Adam is the only asshat around.
Look at what he proposes....what should Democrats learn from this election? To be like Republicans...actually Adam, that was the problem.

Kerry trended so far to the middle that he didn't offer the clearest choice he could of. And don't refer to retarded celebrities as the far left. They're just the creative left, not the far left (that's Kucinich, who, as the far left, at least doesn't call for the murder of abortion doctors, like the new far right Senator from Oklahoma).

No Adam, you are, as usual, completely fucking wrong. Democrats don't need to be less left, they need to be more. They don't have to reject Southern and conservative voters, they have to remind them that every election cycle, the Right panders to their values, then goes back to snorting coke off a hookers' ass driving around in their Cadillacs figuring out ways to reduce the capital gains tax.

The Republicans don't really value these values, as the states that support Bush show. THey have the highest murder rates and divorce rates in the country, these highly moral states.

No, Adam, you are totally fucking wrong. Democrats need to be more left, and it wasn't necessarily Kerry who should have been running, it was Dean.

God, you're a retard.

The Democrats do not need to be more left! Are you crazy?????

Here is a fundamental difference that I consistently see between the two parties: Republicans value the opportunity of any American (regardless of race, creed or color) to pick her or himself up by the bootstraps and become a wealthy member of the elite. Democrats believe we are all equal and each deserve equal value. One (Republican) says no one is entitled to human services that they have not earned and should not suck up the resources of those who have earned their keep; the other (Democrat) believe the wealthy have a responsibility to fund social programs because everyone has a right to certain human services from their gov't. Neither solution is perfect; both (honestly) have their flaws. I am a Democrat and proud of it.

One thing I do not, and likely never will, understand is why someone would trust our Foreign Policy to Bush over Kerry. I just don't get it.

Are you people insane? You trust Bush's policies on the war on terror? Um, but he went into the wrong country looking for imaginary weapons of mass destruction letting so many of our american soldiers get killed? Hello people! New York-overwhelmingly democratic city-and it was the most affected by terrorism. Also, how can you possibly say the republicans don't discriminate against anyone? Every study has indicated that Bush was elected because people were voting based off moral values-CHRISTIAN moral values-or maybe you don't think people of other religions are important and then, yes, they are representing everyone. Must be nice to be arrested of DUI and then just claim you've been "saved" and everyone forgets about it.