60,480,957 Idiots in America?

[KhanadaRhodes]

can i just say one thing? the only idiots in america are those who either didn't vote (those who were eligible at least) or made an uninformed decision. anyone who's 18+ and hasn't been convicted of a felony (or a felon who's had their rights restored) has their civic duty to get out there and learn about their candidates and decide who they want to run their government. i refer not only to the president, but even more local offices like mayor, governor, etc.

the only wrong voter is an uniformed voter

 

[Irvine511]

I don't think that is at the heart of a lot of the moral vote at all. I have a family and what I don't want is the embracing of Eminem, Howard Stern or most in Hollywood as my childrens icons. Most of these people have little or no education and no value system at all. I'm not uptight, not trying to stop them from doing what they're doing. I even find them entertaining more times than not, but they are certainly not what I want my children to aspire to. Unfortunately, that seems to be a measure of success these days.

Regarding, gay marriage... I think many people are upset with the terminalogy more than the granting of equal rights. The term "marriage" has been represented in most western civilization as the union of a man and woman for thousands of years. The foundation is religious and many people get upset with changing the meaning of the word itself. The polls supporting civil unions are consistently high in favor.

Regarding "anti-choice"...I know a lot of men who would really not consider it a choice on their part if a child, partially theirs, were aborted and they could do nothing about it.

your first paragraph is very intersting, and as someone who has taught in early elementary schools, i am aware of the concern many parents have about the effect of mass media upon their children. (on a side note, i'm the eldest, and turned my brother and sister into U2 freaks ... i told my parents the best thing i ever did for them as parents was to get my siblings to worship Bono and not Eminem). there is toxic stuff that comes out of hollywood, but at the same time, those worshippers of the free market don't seem to get as upset when the people on madison avenue try to market their cars, clothes, liquor, or whatever, with as much sex as you'll find anywhere on MTV. seems like there's a double standard here: hollywood, bad; madison avenue, fine if it ships product!

however, how does voting for Bush mean a vote for a cleaner media? all i can see is an FCC that freaks out over Janet Jackson's nipple-pull-tab

i can understand how gay marriage -- the M word in particular -- makes some people uncomfortable. it is new, and sadly the first image many people think of is a man in a wedding dress (while most drag queens are gay, most gay men are not drag queens!) but what really happened in the 2004 election was a vote not just on marriage but on the phrase "and all the legal incidents thereof." that's a *big* deal, and an assault on homosexuality itself, not gay marriage. when you use something new like "marriage" but wrap trick legal language around it in order to systematically destroy contractual relationships between loving couples simply because they are of the same gender, that is bigotry. i'm sure many who voted against gay marriage weren't even congnisant of that phrase, but those who wrote the law knew exactly what they were doing.

i'm not even going to touch the abortion thing except to say that i think "pro-life" is a misnomer. you're either pro-choice or anti-choice. or maybe you're pro-birth, but are you pro-life enough to make sure that child is wanted, loved, fed, and educated?

 

[sharky]

But with this whole moral voting thing for Bush, it makes it sound like because I voted for Kerry, I have no morals. Same with this whole Republican move to label me as unAmerican because I didn't support Bush. The fact remains that I voted for Kerry because I am partriotic and moral. Under Bush, abortions increased, 4 million more Americans fell below the poverty line, millions lost their health insurance. As a Christian, how could I support that?

Boston, I understand your contempt for people like Eminem and Howard Stern, but how does voting for Bush change them? Kerry never said he supported them. Tipper Gore was the one that pushed for parental warning stickers on Eminen's albums so parents know what not to buy. I just don't understand that argument but you're not the first one to use it.

People somehow found a way to connect two things that had no connection and Bush perpetuated those beliefs. Rather than educating themselves, 46% of Americans believed the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq. That alone should tell you people didn't educate themselves about what was going on.

You have to remember the people in this forum are alot smarter than the average American.

 

[nbcrusader]

But with this whole moral voting thing for Bush, it makes it sound like because I voted for Kerry, I have no morals.

Really??

This is an often used discussion tactic which is not making sense.

If the question is "what influenced your vote" and you respond
moral values" that only suggests that between two candidates, one was viewed as better protecting the moral values of the voter in question.

It has nothing to do with complete polarization and imputation of views and beliefs.

 

[sharky]

But it does. If you look at exit polls, the number one issue for people that voted for Bush was moral values. That's why he won. 77% of Evangelicals voted for Bush and most of them said it was because of his moral values. If you look at the exit polls, granted it's not set in stone, but it illustrates that most of the people who used "moral values" as a reason to vote ended up voting for Bush.

 

[Irvine511]

Really??

This is an often used discussion tactic which is not making sense.

If the question is "what influenced your vote" and you respond
moral values" that only suggests that between two candidates, one was viewed as better protecting the moral values of the voter in question.

It has nothing to do with complete polarization and imputation of views and beliefs.

actually, i disagree quite strongly. what the republicans have brilliantly done is to co-opt traditional notions of american-ness, both ideas, ideology, and symbology, and turn them into republican trademarks. this is the heart and soul of the republican political strategy machine, and it has done it's job exceedingly well.

 

[nbcrusader]

THE GOP may use this to energize a portion of its voter base, but that does not mean that the DNC is lacking in moral values.

Or has the DNC abdicated the concept of moral values?

 

[popshopper]

But it does. If you look at exit polls, the number one issue for people that voted for Bush was moral values. That's why he won. 77% of Evangelicals voted for Bush and most of them said it was because of his moral values. If you look at the exit polls, granted it's not set in stone, but it illustrates that most of the people who used "moral values" as a reason to vote ended up voting for Bush.

You've got to love the US. Only there can a
cocaine sniffing, drunk-driving, draft dodging, alcoholic be elected on a moral platform. It's a crazy place.

 

[Irvine511]

THE GOP may use this to energize a portion of its voter base, but that does not mean that the DNC is lacking in moral values.

Or has the DNC abdicated the concept of moral values?

this is exactly what the RNC would want you to think. there's also the simple fact that, for many people, treating homosexuals as people and equal citizens is equated with lacking moral values -- though this seems to me preicsely the kind of moral values i'd look for in a president. it's less that the DNC doesn't have any, and the fact that politics isn't about absolutes but about *comparisons*. and the RNC scores big points with their base when they use fear and hate of differences like sexual orientation to win this side-by-side comparison with the DNC.

 

[verte76]

But it does. If you look at exit polls, the number one issue for people that voted for Bush was moral values. That's why he won. 77% of Evangelicals voted for Bush and most of them said it was because of his moral values. If you look at the exit polls, granted it's not set in stone, but it illustrates that most of the people who used "moral values" as a reason to vote ended up voting for Bush.

I actually feel like I voted for Kerry for moral reasons. It's true that most of my fellow practicing Catholics voted for Bush in large part because of the abortion and gay marriage issues. What we Catholics were expected to do was to look at both candidates and evaluate them on their contributions to the "culture of life". I thought Kerry's position on heath care made him a worthy supporter of a "culture of life", and so did many other Catholics who formed Catholics For Kerry. I'd only be insulted if someone told me to my face that I'd voted for an immoral monster. This hasn't happened. If it does I'll put up a suitable stink about the matter.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

good points verte

Maybe there are the "moral values" that certain elements of the GOP want to fixate on, then others that perhaps they want to avoid discussing.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I actually feel like I voted for Kerry for moral reasons. I'd only be insulted if someone told me to my face that I'd voted for an immoral monster. This hasn't happened. If it does I'll put up a suitable stink about the matter.

Voting for Kerry doesn't make you an immoral monster. To me, it means that you see the world much differently than those who voted for Bush. Kerry is not an immoral monster, but his views have reason for questioning.

 

[verte76]

good points verte

Maybe there are the "moral values" that certain elements of the GOP want to fixate on, then others that perhaps they want to avoid discussing.

Yes. There are other moral value systems. I do not want to point fingers at my Republican friends and claim that they're somehow morally deficient. I certainly do not believe this. But it's also not fair to claim that we liberals didn't vote with any moral intentions.

 

[nbcrusader]

good points verte

Maybe there are the "moral values" that certain elements of the GOP want to fixate on, then others that perhaps they want to avoid discussing.

There are certainly "moral issues" that fall to one side or the other. The DNC and GOP each fixate on specific elements.

 

[verte76]

Voting for Kerry doesn't make you an immoral monster. To me, it means that you see the world much differently than those who voted for Bush. Kerry is not an immoral monster, but his views have reason for questioning.

I absolutely do look at the world in a different way than those who voted for Bush. I understand that people had differences with Kerry on the moral values, but plenty of us who voted for Kerry definitely think we did the right thing. I still do, in fact. I do not regret my vote.

 

[paulrg]

The President reached 60 million+ mark for his vote total in the election. Alot of people have been saying that the only people who voted for Bush were red-neck southerners, homophobes, and just plain and simple complete idiots. (The UK paper "The Daily Mirror" for example ran the headline "D'oh 4 More Years of Dubya--How can X Number of people be so DUMB?") How then, do we explain this number? Are there really nearly 60.5 million idiots living in this country?

The UK paper "The Daily Mirror" is arguably written for idiots - it is a trashy tabloid whose previous editor had to resign earlier this year when he had openly deceived.

And whilst I wouldn't vote for the man I don't think all Bush voters are idiots. Some I might consider ill-informed (a little too much FoxTV and evangelical talk show radio broadcasts) for example. And of course there will have been thousands of Bush voters of well-above average IQ who voted out of self-interest.

Europeans just don't get it cos they elect secularist governments who are only interested in deviously manipulating the UN to gain the spoils of other nations natural resources. They don't have the balls to mount invasions or crusades.


Furthermore anyone with any moral sensitivity would have had to have voted for Bush. After all that Donald Rumsfeld is such an honest man, in these turbulent times we need a man we can rely on to tell the truth and keep us informed heading up the Pentagon. And the good old veep Dick Cheney - isn't he just the jovial old guy you'd happily let your kids play with over the holidays - he ran that morally pristine organisation called Halliburton.

No no no do not mistake all Bush voters for idiots.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Re: Re: 60,480,957 Idiots in America?

And the good old veep Dick Cheney - isn't he just the jovial old guy you'd happily let your kids play with over the holidays - he ran that morally pristine organisation called Halliburton.

Dick Cheney is not someone from my party that I personally admire. Furthermore, I don't understand all this beef about Halliburton. Inform me, please.

 

[deep]

If the question is "what influenced your vote" and you respond
moral values" that only suggests that between two candidates, one was viewed as better protecting the moral values of the voter in question.

The "Good ol' folks" in the red states never really liked all the nonsense about "civil rights" of "equal rights for women"
and now all the nonsense about "special rights" for "those" people.

Well, we need a President that will protect "our values" in the red states.

 

[sharky]

Re: Re: Re: 60,480,957 Idiots in America?

Dick Cheney is not someone from my party that I personally admire. Furthermore, I don't understand all this beef about Halliburton. Inform me, please.

Let's start with the fact that the company was fined $7 million earlier this year for ripping off shareholders while Cheney was CEO and go from there.

 

[verte76]

deep, to a certain extent you're right. The South used to be solidly Democratic, but the civil rights platform in the Democratic national platforms changed that forever. Now others have abandoned the Democrats because of various changes, for example, the whole Roe vs. Wade controversy. During the New Deal era, abortion was not an issue because no one thought about it. The same is true of the whole gay marriage controversy and the controversy over gun control. Politics has changed big time with the times.

 

[deep]

verte76


Johnson said the Democrats would be paying for the Civil Rights legislation he signed for a long time.


since the 1968 election there are 14 states that have gone GOP everytime.

approx 40 % of the electoral votes needed.

that is a great headstart the GOP has in every election.

The GOP southern stagedy is strong
and there is little the Dems can do to change that when "red state values" are so wrong.

 

[verte76]

deep, we're still paying for that stuff. It's one of the most unfortunate developments in American politics.

 

[deep]

deep, we're still paying for that stuff. It's one of the most unfortunate developments in American politics.

and the answer is not to try and make the old "dixiecrat appeal"

just because the GOP has their "dixie mojo" working.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 60,480,957 Idiots in America?

Let's start with the fact that the company was fined $7 million earlier this year for ripping off shareholders while Cheney was CEO and go from there.

More info please.

 

[A_Wanderer]

7 million is small change.

 

[sharky]

When Dick Cheney was CEO of the company, it secretly changed its accounting practices without telling shareholders.

"Halliburton Co. secretly changed its accounting practices when Vice President Dick Cheney was its chief executive officer, the Securities and Exchange Commission said Tuesday as it fined the company $7.5 million and brought actions against two former financial officials.

The commission said the accounting change enabled Halliburton, one of the nation's largest energy services companies, to report annual earnings in 1998 that were 46 percent higher than they would have been had the change not been made. It also allowed the company to report a substantially higher profit in 1999, the commission said."

link

 

[deep]

When Dick Cheney was CEO of the company, it secretly changed its accounting practices without telling shareholders.



link

I sure am glad the Bush Admin. put Martha Stewart in jail.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I sure am glad the Bush Admin. put Martha Stewart in jail.

I was just going to compare Cheney to that woman... kind of ironic.

 

[deep]

Back on point:
60,480,957 Idiots in America?


W's victory is no mandate

it is one of the narrowest ever for a 2nd termer.

Bush's victory ranks among the narrowest ever for a reelected president.

Measured as a share of the popular vote, Bush beat Kerry by just 2.9 percentage points: 51% to 48.1%. That's the smallest margin of victory for a reelected president since 1828.

The only previous incumbent who won a second term nearly so narrowly was Democrat Woodrow Wilson: In 1916, he beat Republican Charles E. Hughes by 3.1 percentage points. Apart from Truman in 1948 (whose winning margin was 4.5 percentage points), every other president elected to a second term since 1832 has at least doubled the margin that Bush had over Kerry.

In that 1916 election, Wilson won only 277 out of 531 electoral college votes. That makes Wilson the only reelected president in the past century who won with fewer electoral college votes than Bush's 286.

Measured another way, Bush won 53% of the 538 electoral college votes available this year. Of all the chief executives reelected since the 12th Amendment separated the vote for president and vice president — a group that stretches back to Thomas Jefferson in 1804 — only Wilson (at 52%) won a smaller share of the available electoral college votes. In the end, for all his gains, Bush carried just two states that he lost last time.

Another trend explains why all of this might matter to more than just historians: Throughout American history, the reelection of a president has usually been a high-water mark for the president's party. In almost every case, the party that won reelection has lost ground in the next presidential election, both in the popular vote and in the electoral college.

The decline has been especially severe in the past half century. Since 1952 there have been six presidential elections immediately following a president's reelection. In those six races, the candidate from the incumbent's party has fallen short of the reelection numbers by an average of 207 electoral college votes and 8.4 percentage points in the popular vote.

Because his margin was so tight, Bush didn't leave the GOP with enough of a cushion to survive even a fraction of that erosion in four years. Even if the GOP in 2008 matches the smallest electoral college fall-off in the past half century — the 99-vote decline between Reagan in 1984 and George H.W. Bush in 1988 — that would still leave the party well short of a majority.

The scale of Bush's victory, compared with that of most other reelected presidents, doesn't provide the basis for claiming an extravagant mandate.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Back on point:
60,480,957 Idiots in America?

How about this: I'm not an idiot, and you're not an idiot. Political parties have nothing to do with who and who isn't an idiot. Let's have a little respect.