Oh good lord
I hope some factions of the wacky left get the sand out of their collective vagina so that we can get back to discussing the issues a bit more politely and seriously. After all, 30% of the homo haters voted for Kerry.
When will the Democrats get serious and relegate these fruit loops to the Green Party or a room with tin foil hats and rubber walls? There is also rampant this notion that the Bush administration is going to declare martial law, overturn Roe v. Wade, give Jerry Falwell a cabinet position, invade France, and generally bring about the apocalypse all at the urging of evangelical Christians. Sure, there are probably a few radical Christian elements that voted for him for those reasons but probably no more than the radical blood for oil, selected not elected, he knew about 9/11 in advance leftists voted for Kerry. To me the idea that they think the average Bush voter thinks that way is kind of sad. Of course, the right wingers that paint all leftists with a broad brush aren’t much better. The fact is both parties need to stop pandering to the radical minority groups that are, quite frankly, insane. But that won’t happen.
Bush, like a lot of Republicans, probably catered to the Christian faction of the right wing a bit to get their votes and will likely not really push the issues (rather like Democrats do with the gay and black vote).
From NYT’s Krugman:
President Bush isn’t a conservative. He’s a radical – the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.
If you think Bush is a right wing, extremist radical then you have no idea what a radical really is. Or you’re further to the left than you think and you really think moderates think like you.
And who created this Moral Values buzzword? And who associated that phrase with opposing gay marriage. Or even as being anti-gay? John Kerry said that he and Bush had the exact same position on the gay marriage issue. Besides, it’s not like there aren’t gays who lean to the right.
Maybe the Democrats should take the rest of the month off to relax, retool, rethink and re-emerge as a better player. Or, as this guy says:
When you lose you suck it up and try again next time. It’s not the end of the World, and I think most people realize that. The only ones who really need a shoulder to cry on are the minority of dems on the angry left.
November 5th, 2004 at 12:38 pm
Bush was for a Constitutional amendment to ban equal marriage and civil unions. Kerry was against such an amendment. They did not have the same position.
Bush flip flopped to match Kerry’s position late in the election, but it’s obvious that he found an amendment acceptable whereas Kerry was unwaivering in his condemnation of the efforts to enshrine homophobia in the constitution.
November 5th, 2004 at 12:54 pm
Bush flip flopped to match Kerry’s position late in the election
No, he didn’t. Feb 04:
They did not have the same position.
Yes, they did, said Kerry:
“The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position”
November 5th, 2004 at 1:47 pm
“If you think Bush is a right wing, extremist radical then you have no idea what a radical really is.” Well said, Uncle.
And thanks for posting so much this week. Many of my other fav bloggers seem to be on vacation.
November 5th, 2004 at 2:12 pm
Nice run down Uncle. I’m pro abortion, for gay rights/marriage and think all drug laws should be eliminated…yet I voted for W…oh yeah, did I mention that I was an athiest too?
November 5th, 2004 at 2:13 pm
*am, not was an athiest.
November 5th, 2004 at 2:57 pm
Uncle:
Out-of-context quotes does not change the fact that one supported amending the constitution to prohibit gay marriage, and one did not. I know you are neither stupid nor blind enough to not see that difference. That’s like saying “they have the same position on guns, but one supports repealing the second amendment, and one doesn’t.”
And for the record, while the term “radical” is IMO a bit much, Bush does want to tear down Social Security and Medicare, and to break down the church/state barriers. Even most of his vocal supporters don’t dispute those points.
As Bush himself likes to say, “look at the record.” He has repeatedly pushed for tax funding of religious organizations. He has repeatedly called court rulings that uphold church/state separation “bad.” He’s on record as wanting to change social security to a personal, private, voluntary system (and hasn’t explained how he would avoid screwing the people who receive it now).
As far as I can tell, the only gloom-and-doom prediction you attribute to leftists that they have actually made is that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, and that one is a very real possibility. Bush has said his favorite SC justice is Scalia; if something happened to replace Ginsburg or Stevens (or even O’Connor) with someone more like Thomas or Scalia, badda bing, Roe v. Wade is gone, and something like 30 states would have criminalized abortions immediately or very quickly.
This despite the fact that according to your “30%” link, 84% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in at least some cases (and 55% believe it should be legal in “most cases” (34%) or all cases (21%).)
But hey, if you can show me where someone seriously suggested that Falwell would get a cabinet post (like Ashcroft was much better, by the way), or that we were going to invade France, I’d love to see it.
November 5th, 2004 at 3:12 pm
I cannot imagine any context in which Kerry says he and Bush have exactly the same position would mean anything else.
Tearing down medicare and SS is not radical as it is something that reasonable people can disagree on.
While using tax dollars to fund religious enterprises does go against separation, i don’t think that funding charities and non-profits that just happen to organized by religious persons does. No one is respecting the establishment of religion here. If they want to feed the homeles, i don’t care if it’s done by a religious person or a secular person. I’m just glad someone is doing it.
“As far as I can tell, the only gloom-and-doom prediction you attribute to leftists that they have actually made is that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, and that one is a very real possibility. ”
Obviously, the sarcasm was lost on you. I didn’t address SS# or Mediscare either. I doubt that any of the things mentioned by the prez involve establishing a national religion.
And i think the RVW claim is just a scare tactic. I doubt it will be overturned.
“But hey, if you can show me where someone seriously suggested that Falwell would get a cabinet post (like Ashcroft was much better, by the way), or that we were going to invade France, I’d love to see it. ”
Again, sarcasm. I also don’t think the left really has sand in its collective vagina, either.
November 5th, 2004 at 3:42 pm
SU..I think what Brutal Hugger was talking about was Bush’s sudden about face last week saying that he was personally in favour of civil unions, though wouldn’t have implemented them as governor of Texas.
After all, 30% of the homo haters voted for Kerry.
which means that 70% voted for Bush. I’ve worked on GOTV, and it is not about getting only your supporters to the polls. Its about looking at demographics that support you and getting them out to the polls because not all of them will vote for your candidate, but most will. For instance, Democrats spend a lot of effort getting union voters out to the polls. Not all union members vote Democrat, but most do. The same goes for Karl Rove’s 4 million evangelical Christians that didn’t vote in 2000. All of these people wouldn’t have voted for Bush, but most would have.
Its not a question of that all Bush supporters did so based on “moral issues”, its a question of whether that was what tipped the election.
November 5th, 2004 at 4:19 pm
radical, dude
Uncle comments on the post-election reactions: I hope some factions of the wacky left get the sand out of their collective vagina so that we can get back to discussing the issues a bit more politely and seriously. After all,…
November 5th, 2004 at 5:31 pm
“Bush does want to tear down Social Security and Medicare….”
Sounds good to me.
November 5th, 2004 at 6:48 pm
Tgirsch:
If they don’t, they certainly should. Investing 2% of Social Security withholdings in private funds is hardly my idea of tearing the system down.
Anything is possible, I suppose, but this scenario is extremely far-fetched. Contrary to your comment, merely replacing one of the Justices you mentioned with a Scalia-style constructionist wouldn’t affect Roe at all. He’d have to replace at least two of them, along with replacing Chief Justice Rehnquist, who will almost certainly be the first to go. The odds of him going 3 for 3 are essentially nil.
November 6th, 2004 at 7:28 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the way I learned the terms, a radical wants massive change to comething new. A reactionary wants massive change back to the way things were.
So wouldn’t a group that wants to get rid of the Social Security and Medicare pyramid schemes be reactionaries?
BTW, whether that position is radical or reactionary, I’m in that group. I can do a much better job of setting up my own retirement if I had all that money.
November 7th, 2004 at 2:09 am
Xrlq:
If I’m not mistaken, most recent abortion challenges have gone 5-4, with O’Connor as the swing vote. All you have to is change one of the 5, and the balance is in your favor.
Uncle:
I actually recognized the sarcasm, but took exception to you listing a very real possibility (RVW overturned) amidst several moonbatty ones. Never mind the feasibility issue, RVW being overturned is a stated goal of one of Bush’s most vocal constituencies. That’s the other reason it was wildly out of place.
November 7th, 2004 at 3:11 am
Tgirsch, you are mistaken. The court was indeed split 5-4 on the central holding of Roe at the time of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, but subsequent personnel changes brought it to 6-3.
November 7th, 2004 at 12:42 pm
Why is the Rocky Top Brigade have so many memebers or this site and so few members on other sites? Is this the complete list? Are other sites listed only liberal Rocky Top Brigade sites?
November 7th, 2004 at 4:58 pm
‘Yes, they did, said Kerry:
“The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position”’
You wouldn’t suppose that maybe Kerry was worried that he’d lose the election over gay marriage, so he lied – as usual.
The “moral values” thing is being played up because the ambiguity of that phrase lets the Democrats and the leftist media come up with an explanation for their loss that doesn’t involve acknowledging their lies and corruption. It comes from the exit polls, which asked voters to choose one primary reason for choosing to vote as they did from a short list. “Moral values” was first at 22% – although Iraq and terrorism were second and third at only a few points lower, and to most people on both sides I think these were two pieces of the single issue of whether to pursue American security by forceful action or not. And for that matter, to me Kerry’s lack of “moral values” was another piece of that security issue – to be precise, I will not have a man who was once morally (but not legally) a traitor as my son’s commander in chief.
But “moral values” means many things to many people. The Dems want to pretend that it meant opposition to gay marriage, and to pretend that this means homophobia – because to them, not only is homophobia immoral, but so is governmental discrimination against their favorite “minorities”. (One of these favored groups, women, is actually a majority…) OTOH, I find the Democratic tradition of identifying people by group and promising favored treatment for certain groups to be profoundly immoral, racist, sexist, and so on, and I like to think that I’d feel the same way even if I wasn’t a white male.
But lying is also a violation of moral values – and Kerry has lied so much he can’t keep his story straight anymore, while many so-called journalists have passed all previous bounds in fabricating pro-Kerry stories. Kerry’s part in the “Winter Soldier” hearings was not only in support of lies, but was morally (although not legally) treason – if I knew of nothing else against Kerry, this alone is enough reason that he can never be Commander in Chief. (And I’ve got a personal stake in that – a son in the Navy.) Kerry’s 20 years of pandering to gun-bigotry is alarming; his lame campaign-trail pretense of not being anti-gun was just another lie. As for the security/terrorism/Iraq issue, at the base it’s a moral issue – whether we have the courage to fight for what is right by our lights, or will fold to insanely intolerant and murderous Islamic terrorism. Nothing in Kerry’s record says that he is even capable of perceiving this reality, let alone doing the right thing.
So, I am an atheist, I voted against the marriage amendment in my state, I still hold in many ways to what were liberal values before liberalism and socialism got mixed together, and I voted for Bush – and I could say I did it for moral reasons.
November 7th, 2004 at 8:40 pm
Bob, some people don’t link to all of them. I do.