Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What did the country think would happen

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 05:47 AM
Original message
What did the country think would happen
you look at the polls today, and bush's ratings are dismal at best, and the repuke congress is even lower

People are against his social security plan, medicare prescription plan, the iraq war support is turning against him, they aren't happy about destroying the filibuster rules, etc.

to be frank, bush pretty much told the country what his intentions were. He would nominate prochoice judeges, ban embroyonic stem cell research, privitize social security and medicare, etc.

Is there anyone who is surprised at this?

We could NOT have picked a weaker candidate in 2004. Thank-you DNC and DLC. I can hardly wait to see who you give us this time. I assume it will be someone who gave * the authority to go into war, and has the philosophy that we are in there now so we can't just withdraw.

We will pay for the consequences of our actions for years to come.

I would be very surprised if they didn't get everything they wanted

Unfortunately, I believe it is too late. There will be a lot of pain, both on the battlefield, and in the economy before the pukes lose there influence

I guess most people in this country didn't realize how important the election of 2004 really was
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Crazy8s Donating Member (161 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. People didn't think, period.
They have been lulled into compliance by trust in corporate media and the mistaken belief that their government leaders are always looking out for the good of the people. They were constantly bombarded with fear tactics, patriotic jingoism, Bible thumping and lies wrapped in good ole boy jargon.

AND they were operating under the mistaken belief that we have free and clear elections.

Even with all of this, half of this country (likely more) voted against this administration. I do not think Kerry was a poor candidate. He made mistakes, but so did Bush*. Kerry just didn't have the press on his side to cover for him. Instead, they helped to smear him and keep his air time to a minimum. As it was, NO ONE could have beaten Bush* and his voting machines. The fix was in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. No one can beat any of them....
Who are being elected by the voting machines. We have no choice in the end but to reform the process, and expose the corruption that is in our democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. That is a perfect example
I do not see either party pushing to reform the election process. Where is the paper trail? That seems to have disappeared

We need to be the leader in ideas. Energy, social security, medicare, how to get OUT OF IRAQ, etc

We are always on the defensive, and we will go no where in that position

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. It's happening only at the state level.
State by state, the voting systems are being reformed and verified paper ballots are being mandated. But it's a two prong game, because at the same time the ones in power fight to preserve the machines and try to plunder democracy.

But if each state changes its laws, as the tune changes, the electoral process will be taken back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Respectfully, Kerry ran a terrible campaign
it wasn't the medias fault that he answered questions with "nuance"

It wasn't the medias fault that he let the swift puke ads go unanswered for several months

It wasn't the medias fault when he was in the grand canyon during the campaign, and asked knowing what he knows now, would he have still voted to give * the authority to go into Iraq, and he said "yes"

Even during the 3 debates, when Kerry was asked about the 87 billion dollars, he couldn't answer it directly, even though he had a reasonable and good answer

Until we stop blaming everything on the media, and realize that it is because we do not present the message in clear simple terms, I remain quite pessimistic

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crazy8s Donating Member (161 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Respectfully, so did Bush*
However, he never had to answer to anything.

Did he ever say anything with 'nuance'? He usually sounded like an uncomprehending imbecile. Where was the media here?

Did he ever answer to AWOL charges? Where was the media here?

Was it ever really explored that his minions were planted to coerce Kerry into explaining his vote so that it would be on tape? And that only the beginning of the answer was played ad nauseam? The media knew the answer was on film. I seem to remember Kerry addressing this during some interview or other, but such explanations were downplayed and buried.

During the three debates, Bush* showed his complete incompetence and inability to think and put together cohesive sentences. He failed to answer quite a few questions with any sense, but did it matter?

Until we realize that we're not in Kansas anymore, and that the old rules no longer apply, we, as a nation, are sunk. Kerry drew HUGE crowds everywhere he went. Bush brought his own with him.

True, Kerry did not present himself in simpleton terms. But I think he would have lost even if he used only one syllable words and avoided compound sentences. As I said before, the fix was in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. There was no doubt where * stood
there was a log of ambiguity where Kerry stood

I think Kerry would have won, if he had a consistent message

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Kerry wouldn't have been declared either way
Because of that one little word called "Fraud"

Well technically he won. Oh well. Let the criminals play their cards now but we have a job in every state...Gain back the voting system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. It's ALMOST like Kerry (or his handlers) took a dive.
I like and respect John Kerry, even though he takes positions to the right of me and slightly right of the Western "Middle." I don't and can't know whether he consciously ran a sub-par campaign or even if his stance on the IWR was a deliberate Achilles Heel - but he was not the best candidate, imho, other than possibly as a TV image.

The reason I think he (or his campaign) "took a dive" is primarily because of two things: his unnecessarily ambiguous stance on the invasion of Iraq and his August "stand down" when he appeared totally unprepared to deal with the attack on his Vietnam War record and his post-war VVAW positions as mangled and misrepresented by the Swift Boat Liars. He had to foresee such an attack. That he both "stood down" and, when awakened, was so unprepared to counter those attacks, leads me to believe it was a dive. Absolutely no Presidential Campaign should ever caught be so flat-footed in the face of a very foreseeable attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
7. The country was thinking KERRY would win!
As borne out by the exit polls, which are accurate everywhere on the planet except here--and have been accurate in every race except those involving a member of the BFEE. (Yes, I mean the exit polls which were ALTERED by CNN on its presentations as the evening "progressed.")

48 hours before the election, you could see it in the eyes of all but the most irretrievably-braindead PugBots: bu$h was going to lose big. Then (cue the angelic choir), came a MIRACLE...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. true, but we were told by the Kerry camp, and the DNC
that they had everything under control. At least a year before the general election, we knew there were places that did have a paper trail for the ballots. They assured us what happened in 2000 would NOT happen in 2004. Not only did they drop the ball, but the Kerry camp had quite a sum of unused money after the election was over. That money was supposed to go to the campaign, and to insure that the voting was fair...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I concede every point in your post!
One might even go so far as to say Even Kerry could beat bu$h.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Kerry is good in the Senate
He is not, however, an energetic fighter in the trenches. Think of it this way: He doesn't like to get his hands dirty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. i know he could have beat *
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
12. The Right is exceptionally organized , well-funded and
exceptionally unethical in their pursuit of power. Corporate power run amok is the Right and it is in their interests to control consensus. This is achieved through manipulation of all branches of government, political parties and the media to mold popular opinion.

People jump aboard the bandwagon because that steady, overwhelming pounding of the drums drowns out everything else come election time. It is the only show in town.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newportdadde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
15. They didn't think it would happen to them.

As long as it happens to someone else they are okay with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC