The culture war is real, and it is a conflict not merely about some particular policy or legislative item, but about modernity itself.
One gets the idea from this statement that if we could just turn the clock back to a certain time, the Red States would be very happy! We could turn it back to about, oh, 1850 or so - a time when a man could beat his slaves to death, and shoot anyone that looked foreign and get away with it - provided he himself was White.
There are places today where this 'right' survives in modified form, mostly applied to women and children. Maybe the Red Staters are just jealous.
A friend is reading a book entitled Seven Myths of Gun Control in which there the author tries to make the case that all we need in America is to reclaim our heritage as gun-toting hunters and warriors, and then every major issue America faces will disappear. Criminals can be shot on the spot, women will remember their place is behind the defense we men provide, and impoliteness risks a bullet between the eyes.
It's a wonderful life!
Posted by Pessimist at November 12, 2004 06:10 AMGood Post. And who do the "red state" voters feel are the receptors of the largess of the "liberal elite" ? Time and time again, in sometimes hushed tones, sometimes angry diatribes, it is the Minorities.....black, brown, yellow, that are targeted as the beneficiaries of the liberalism that suck the tax money out of the pockets and collection plates of white citizens. At the core of all the "red state" values is undeniable racism, racism condoned and supported by the pulpits across the South and Midwest. That is the Culture War in a nutshell. All the "morals" and "values" talk is just a screen to hide the real, ugly truth about our country's prejudice.
Posted by T2 at November 12, 2004 06:25 AMWe can be as mad as we want, but not for long. Well before the next election, we need to decide whether we're willing to lose again because we like our precious modernity so much.
I'll become a violent insurgent in my own country before I let us slink into the confederacy, the ancien regime, or something even more primordial. Quite literally, over my dead body.
This sounds quite inspiring, but I really doubt it's true. Keep in mind that when we saw "the failure of liberal philosophy" on Nov. 2d, the failure was the failure to get votes--a pretty damning failure in a democracy.
If we're at the point where we prefer taking up arms to pandering to the benighted, I think that's a much more serious failure of liberal philosophy. We will have essentially capitulated, saying that there's no hope of reaching "those people," and trying to make the best of the descent into The Jungle.
Posted by Matt Davis at November 12, 2004 06:39 AMWhile doing a post on Fundementalist Christians in Germany last night I was surprised by one statistic. In the US 60% of the people say religion is an important part of their life while in Germany it is only 20%. This goes a long way to explain the success of the hypocritical Limbaughs et al in pushing the moral agenda. I for one am not willing to return to the 14th century to win these people over.
Posted by Ron In Portland at November 12, 2004 06:45 AMthe very use of the word Philosophy begs disagreement with mr. Carson. He uses words to frame his argument that cause one to ponder his thinking. The Liberal use of the word Philosphy has a far deeper meaning. How can one not think philosophicaly of young deaths for lies? The drama of life interrupted seems to go right by him. He discusses issue differences with the very basics Philospophy of our Democracy as if we can sweep those difference under a rug. Granted I have lived through a few cultural difference in this country . At 71, I remember living well, the south of pre civil rights. I remember well the fight for womens rights and the right to choose. I remember the country fighting the Vietnam "culture war". I can of course remember my childhood where the sons of neighbors went off to war and we at home sold liberty bonds and wrapped tinfoil in balls for the war effort. It was a war to bring peace and end hatred.
I most certainly will not give into what he is now trying to tell my side the "liberal" side we have to capitulate. NO way !!! My kids and grandchildren don't believe me when I say if they try to overturn Roe Vs Wade I'll be in Washington marching with a rifle on my back. We fought these fights for progress. Whoever thinks going back is the way to go better read their history books.Lets use their words you'll have to take this rifle out of "my cold dead hands"
God Bless Democracy
Did someone say "liberal" and "philosophy"? Shall we be the Party of Virtue?
MattD is right. Now is not the time to capitulate and join the rightwing in extremism. We need to do more than merely oppose the rightwing, we need to adapt better to changing conditions. I hate to think it, but the other side, the conservatives (or radical regressives if you prefer), have prevailed for much of the last 36 years because they've been better at adapting, using the political current of resentment to their advantage.
Part of that necessary adaptation is recognizing that while we've lost another painful battle, but as Frank Rich points out, we're winning the war.
There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming that the country swung to the right on cultural issues in 2004. Like so many other narratives that immediately calcify into our 24/7 media's conventional wisdom, it is fiction. Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and smell the Chardonnay.The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out.
We progressives got 49% against a regeme that lied to start a war in Iraq, has corporate
corruption levels comparable to the Grant administration, political corruption John Dean has called "worse than Watergate" and a president that Howard Dean has noted is the most imcompetent scince handsome Harding graced the rose garden.
And some of you want to throw in the towel?
DO NOT! Remember the youngest voters. those under 30 are more numberous than the boomers,
supported Kerry by at least 55% to 45% and did
vote in larger numbers than any group of young voters ever has. Voting at a young age has always
indicated regular voting at higher rates as a group ages. Also early party preference often holds and these young Americans remember Iran-contra from childhood, the nifty nineties of the
Clinton presidency and were educated by mostly
"back to basics" techniques that encorage rational thinking. This generation is less likely
to fall for the 'fear mogering" that Karl Rove sells.
In short, we need to continue to engage young voters and let them know that their votes did prevent the fear based landslide that Bush and Rove really wanted. Remember that Bush's 2004 victory even if it was honest, which many of us doubt, was the smallest presidential re-election scince 1916. Simply put, we have what in sports would be called a good farm team much like the 1920 era democrats did with the GI generation. As the problems the Bush crew creates and avoids talking about, much like the 1920's republicans did become inescapable to non-extremeist red state voters Rove's "immoral majority" will not have the votes to hold power. Nobody wants a depression, but even sensable republicans know Bush is heading us to hard times of some sort, and these hard times will spill over into Canada and the rest of the workd too.
Don't give up and encorage young progressives to stay politically active!
I agree with Bragan. The Christian Right did not win the culture war. There is no way that the majority of Americans are part of this sect that Brad Carson describes. Not every Republican has been assimilated into the fundamentalist borg. Remember that fundamentalism is by its very nature anti-modernist - that is the definition. This again is persisting in seeing the Christian Right as stronger than they really are in this society.
Bush won lots of votes based on making John Kerry a more unacceptable candidate and on terrorism -- not because the American public is suddenly anxious to create the new dark ages (where the majority of people are superstitiously certain that Satan is laying in wait for them and that God is ready to toss them into hell for the slightest misstep), but because the RNC marketing machine has done a great job of making Americans more afraid of the terrorists outside than the our own internal fanatics.
On every "domestic" issue, the majority of Americans agreed with the Democratic position, not the Republican position. The problem was the election didn't play in that arena. That is hardly a win for the Chrisian Right.
Posted by Mary at November 12, 2004 08:48 AMI think everyone has totally missed the point of the "moral values issue." The point is that Democrats did NOT EVEN BOTHER TO DEBATE the moral values issue. What Kerry should have done is to launch negative attacks on George Bush's moral values, on his feigned piety, if you will. He should have pointed out the George Bush is not a regular church-goer, whereas Kerry is. He should have pointed out that George Bush does not care about the needs of the poor or the sick or the uninsured, whereas he does. Yada, yada, yada. In other words, he should have debated Bush on who was more righteous and moral. If he had done this, he would have followed Karl Rove's golden rule: YOU ALWAYS ATTACK AN OPPONENT' STRENGTHS, and Bush's main strength was his appearance of being a moral, pious, God-fearing man. So Kerry should have torn down that curtain and showed America that Bush was actually a fraud and a phony. Does anyone agree with me on this?
Posted by MadHatter at November 12, 2004 08:58 AMI agree with Mary.
There are a number of reasons that Kerry lost this election. The Christian Extreemist voter turn out definitely contributed even if it wasn't the determinate factor.
That being said I'm still pissed that my religion is being perverted by these people.
Posted by muckcat at November 12, 2004 09:03 AMYes I think BoldCokeHead BushBold is leading a war not worth having. He is in this war for the oil. I think that 9/11 just helped him start this war. I dont like BoldSo CALLED PRESIDENT BUSHBold So whos with me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LETS STOP THIS SO CALLED SEARCH FOR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. I SAY FUCK BUSH. LET HIM FIGHT HIS OWN FUCKIN WAR. LET HIM IMPRESS DADDY THAT WAY.. FUCK YOU GEORGE W BUSH
Posted by PISSED OFF KID at November 12, 2004 09:04 AMIn other words, he should have debated Bush on who was more righteous and moral.
That one sentence contains the big flaw in that argument.
Posted by at November 12, 2004 09:07 AMThe problem was the election didn't play in that arena. That is hardly a win for the Chrisian Right.
Yup. What's going to be really interesting over the next two years is watching the "Christian" Right demanding their payoff for pushing the Bush team over the top in this election. They will be stiffed on almost everything significant on their wish-list, I'll bet. How they respond to becoming the GOP's red-headed stepchild (again) will be decisive.
If they decide they can accept continually being taken for granted, it will be very tough for us to beat the GOP. If instead they decide to make the GOP suffer in a bid to demonstrate their value, as some of us on the left did to the DLC in 2000 by voting Nader, the GOP may not win another election for a LOOOONG time.
Posted by Matt Davis at November 12, 2004 09:07 AMMary
While I don't really disagree with you I don't think the "Radical Christian Right should be discounted. Even here in the Portland area I see the Evangelical churches expanding and the mainstream churches closing and consolidating. The movement is large already, although numbers are hard to come by, but more important it continues to expand. I must admint that I can't explain this expansion so I really don't have a solution. Increasing attempts in all parts of the country to maginalize science in the schools and re-write history will only contribute to this return to the Dark Ages here in the US.
Ron, I agree with you too. The Radical Right has some huge amplifiers - both the Right Wing radio and the Fundamentalist preachers (as well as those other power-hungry parasites on the Christian Right - such as Viguire and Dobson). Increasing numbers of people are falling under the spell of simple answers disconnected from facts and reality. I've thought that one of our problems is that we'll need to rescue lots of people from the cults that currently control them.
One of the things we need to do is to expose the demagoguery that is inherent in the Republican power-grab, because that is what is driving a lot of the intensity and distrust.
Yet, the fact that the young voters were much more inclined to support Kerry says that the numbers that are part of the radical right isn't overwhelming yet.
Posted by Mary at November 12, 2004 09:36 AMY'all are focusing on the things that matter the least. The most important stats of the election were how folks voted based on their economic situation. People vote their pocketbooks.
$50K per year voted Bush. (This is 55% of the population)
As far as religion goes, the most rapidly expanding religion in the US is Islam.
Posted by muckdog at November 12, 2004 09:43 AMThe culture war is real, and it is a conflict not merely about some particular policy or legislative item, but about modernity itself.
John Kerry and the Democrats failed because they are still mired in a Modernist world view -- while the real battle is between Post-Modernism and Post-Postmodernism. Karl Rove gets it; the Democrats are clueless.
The "Culture War" is really the reactionary rebellion against Modernism and Post-Modernism. But since the fantasy world imagined by the Reactionaries never existed and never will exist, they are little more than putty in the hands of a Post-Postmodernist message master like Karl Rove.
From the "What Went Wrong" post:
The swing voters in the focus groups said they didn't want to see attack ads, so the campaign dutifully obeyed. "There was a belief within the campaign that you did not need, fundamentally, to raise these questions about Bush," says one of the architects of the campaign's strategy.
Reading that made me apoplectic, wanting to scream and cry with rage. How stupid can these people be?
These focus group participants who say they don't want to see negative ads are the same folks who say they want fuel efficient cars, and then go out and buy SUV's. These are the same people who go into the voting booth mumbling about the flip-flopping wind-surfing John Kerry, and the strong leader George Bush -- and we know what happened then.
When there is a conflict between the rational mind and the emotional gut, the gut always wins. The reptilian brain is far more powerful than the cerebral cortex, especially when fear is involved.
Sad to say, the stupid Democrats still think they can win by constructing rational arguments, while ignoring the gut driven emotional "values" debate.
The Post Modern world is so hopelessly fragmented, that is is nearly impossible to put together a coherent Modernist narrative -- and the sooner the Democrats realize this, the sooner they will have a chance at winning. We have to pick and choose images and words and issues that appeal to voters across demographic groups, and if there are inherent contradictions in these messages, that's okay -- that's reality. Intellectual consistency is for losers.
Posted by ck at November 12, 2004 09:43 AMAs far as religion goes, the most rapidly expanding religion in the US is Islam.
But the U.S. is in very little danger of becoming an Islamic theocracy; our odds of becoming a "Christian" theocracy, though, are significant enough to warrant some concern. Rate of growth is not the important metric.
Posted by Matt Davis at November 12, 2004 09:45 AMPost deleted for vulgarity by host
Posted by pissed off kid at November 12, 2004 09:47 AMI agree with MadHatter's post, except for the church going part of it. Kerry needed to attack and expose Bush's hypocrisy on every issue that mattered -- and if he had done that, he could have cruised to a 5 or 10 point victory.
One of the biggest mistakes Kerry made was backing down after the "crooked liars" off-mike comment. If that had been the starting point of a frontal assault on Bush's credibility, it would have been game over.
Instead, we witnessed one of the lamest and most stupid campaigns of our lifetimes. "Anybody But Bush" would have won the election, but it was dragged down by having John Kerry at the top of the ticket.
Posted by ck at November 12, 2004 09:57 AMi think that Bush shouldnt have been re elected. People who said they would vote should have voted. I have Bushes CRIMINAL RACORDES. I will copy them onto this comment. And PISSED OFF KID I know what you mean. But would you please quit so much cussing. And next time don't use EMINEMS the best rapper alive lyrics in you comment. And so you know what I mean when you said qoute "let him fight his own war" and "impress daddy that way" but here are bushes crimenal recorders
Bush's Record of Shame
Up to 2000; Includes comments and family arrests that reflect on Bush's own record, actions and character. This record is not complete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December, 1966: Bush, after having "a few beers," stole a Christmas wreath from a hotel in New Haven Connecticut. Arrested for disorderly conduct.
1967: Bush is arrested for disorderly conduct when he storms onto the Princeton University football field, climbs onto the field goal crossbar, and tries to break off a piece as a souvenir.
Late 1960's: After gaining entrance as a "legacy student," Bush maintains a low C average at Yale, the bare minimum to graduate. In his freshman year, he was in the 21st percentile of his class. While at Yale, says he cannot wait to leave the school, and hates its "intellectual snobbery."
Late 1960's: Bush admonishes Yale schoolmate for admitting plan to avoid serving in Vietnam; calls him "irresponsible."
May 27, 1968: 12 days before his student deferment expires, George W. Bush applies to join the Texas National Guard. Despite a waiting list of 18 months, Bush is signed in the same day. Bush is assigned to a celebrity sons unit, with sons of two other senators (Bentsen and Towers), sons of oil magnates, and 7 sons of Dallas Cowboys players. He was assigned to pilot duty despite a 25% score (lowest possible for duty), and was commissioned to 2nd Lt. despite lack of qualifications or passage through Officer Candidate School. Is trained to fly an F-102, which is being phased out, guaranteed to never be called into duty in Vietnam.
April 1972: Military institutes drug tests in routine exams, including urinalysis, questions about drugs and "a close examination of the nasal cavities" (for cocaine). Bush is due for this exam by August 1972.
May 1972 to May 1973: Bush leaves NG for Alabama without transfer orders; later requests transfer, which is granted then cancelled; he then applies for transfer to Alabama 187th Tactical Recon group, and is approved--but never shows up.
December 1972: Bush returns to Houston for duty. But in May 1973, Bush's supervising pilots wrote in his annual efficiency report: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report" (i.e. through April 30, 1972). Later that month, two special orders commanded Bush to appear for active duty. He served 36 days of active duty during May, June and July before leaving the Guard early. Bush's official discharge date was October 1, 1973, but his last day in uniform was July 31, 10 months earlier.
December 1972: Did community service for Project P.U.L.L., an inner city Houston program for troubled youths; this is completely out of character for Bush at the time. Reports suggest that he was arrested for drunk driving or cocaine use in Houston, and the community service was quietly arranged.
1973: Bush applies for entrance into University of Texas law school, and is rejected. Harvard Business School apparently had lower standards than UT, as it accepted Bush. Bush graduates from Harvard with an MBA in 1975.
September 4, 1976, a state trooper saw Bush's car swerve onto the shoulder, then back onto the road. Bush failed a road sobriety test and blew a .10 blood alcohol, plead guilty, and was fined and had his driver's license suspended. Bush had drunk "several beers" at a local bar before the arrest. His underage sister was in the car when he was driving drunk.
Bush got a court hearing to get his driving suspension lifted early, even though he had not completed a required driver rehabilitation course. He told the hearings officer that he drank only once a month, and just had "an occasional beer." The officer granted his request. But Bush continued drinking for 8 years after that date and has said publicly that he drank too much and had a drinking problem during that time. Dick Cheney, incidentally, has been arrested twice for drunk driving, in 1962 and 1963.
Follow-up:
November 21, 1999: On 'Meet The Press', Tim Russert asks Bush about information about his past coming out; Bush replies, "If someone was willing to go public with information that was damaging, you'd have heard about it by now. You've had heard about it now." This was a direct lie, as his DUI arrest had not been reported publicly.
November 3, 2000: "Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, [Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne] Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. 'He said, 'After 1968? No.'" This was a direct lie, as he was arrested for drunk driving in 1976.
----
Late 1970's to 1980's: Founded Arbusto Oil Company with $20,000 of his own money and $4.7 million from 50 or so investors, mainly family friends. Arbusto fails and is bought by Spectrum 7, owned by Reagan/Bush supporters, in Sept. 1984, which appoints Bush as president. Later, Spectrum 7 also fails, and is bought by Harken, which assigns Bush to board of directors. After Bush joins Harken, it receives $25 million stock offering from bank with CIA ties and which was a top Bush Sr. contributor, a lucrative exclusive contract with Bahrain, and a board member is invited to White House policy meetings with George Bush, Sr.
April, 1986: Bush confronts Wall Street Journal editor Al Hunt in a Mexican diner in Dallas, in front of Hunt's wife and his four-yeaer-old son, saying, "You fucking son of a bitch. I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this." Bush was apparently both drunk and upset that Hunt had predicted that Jack Kemp would be the Republican Party nominee instead of his father.
1989-1990: Bush borrows $180,375 from Harken, which later forgave $341,000 in loans to "unnamed" executives; in other words, the executives were allowed to walk off with said money.
May, 1990: Bush Sr. has access to State Department memo warning of possible oil price drops due to Iraq's possible actions. Harken's internal financial advisers at Smith Barney issue a report warning that the company is in financial trouble. Bush Jr. has potential access to the first bit of information, and absolute access to the second.
June, 1990: One month after having access to insider information signalling a drop in the firm's stock value, Bush sold 60% of his stock in Harken Oil for $848,560. 3 months later, Iraq invades Kuwait, sending Harken stock prices down 25%, dropping even more a few months later. SEC, run by his father, fails to investigate.
July 10, 1990: Bush fails to register his sale as an insider trade by deadline; does so in March 1991, far too late. He is not punished.
November 1994: Elected governor of Texas.
March 31, 1995: George and Laura Bush are given new driver's license numbers; Bush's is #000000005. Bush was born on July 6, 1946, and his license was not near expiration. The reason given for the change was "security," but there is no precedent for Texas governors doing this. The change destroyed the records of his previous license, which would have detailed any arrests.
September 1996: Bush called to jury duty, and accepts, saying it is a "feeble excuse" to say he's too busy or important. But he is then assigned to a DUI case, and might be asked under oath if he had ever been arrested for drunk driving. Bush asks to be dismissed from jury the night before the trial, and is helped by Alberto R. Gonzales, Bush's legal counsel. Bush later appoints Gonzales to the Texas Supreme Court, and later still to White House counsel. Gonzales is a candidate for a Supreme Court seat if a vacancy arises.
June, 1997: Bush signs law toughening penalties for underage drinkers.
December 31, 1997: Jenna Bush arrested on alcohol charge in Texas. Record is kept confidential as Jenna is 16 at the time, but her name appears in a Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission database.
July 20, 1999: Bush named as defendant in case against funeral home operator SCI. After failing to appear for a deposition on July 1, Bush signs affidavit swearing he had no knowledge of a case involving SCI, which donated $45,000 to Bush, in order to avoid involvement in the case. He swore that he had had no conversations with its officials, but later (Aug. 99) admitted to a conversation with an SCI official, claiming that nothing substantive was discussed--a non-issue, as he did not swear to not having "substantive" conversations, but ANY conversations at all. Texas Funeral Service Commission chief testifies that he spoke with Bush on the matter, which Bush also swore in the affidavit that he did not do. Bush's chief of staff also testified that he spoke with Bush on the matter. Bush is shown to have lied under oath, a transgression that Republicans felt was worthy of impeachment.
August 18, 1999: Bush says, "As I understand it, the current FBI form asks the question, 'Did somebody use drugs within the last 7 years?' and I will be glad to answer that question, and the answer is no." This clears Bush up intil 1992.
August 19, 1999: Bush says, "Yesterday, I was asked what I thought was a relevant comment about whether or not I would, should I become the president, have background checks for people who work for me and in the White House, and, if I did, could I pass the standards of the background check. The answer is absolutely. Not only could I pass the background check of the standards applied in today's White House, I could have passed the background check on the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States, a 15-year period." This clears Bush up until 1974, as his father began his presidency in 1989. See Bush's record with community service and with the Texas National Guard just before 1974.
April 27, 2001: Jenna Bush arrested for possession of alcohol as a minor.
May 31, 2001: Jenna and Barbara Bush arrested trying to purchase alcohol as minors. This is Jenna's 3rd arrest, but she avoids the three-strikes law her father signed 4 years earlier.
LIL COOK the 2 best rapper alive
Posted by lil cook at November 12, 2004 09:59 AMI must admint that I can't explain this expansion so I really don't have a solution.
Why is fundamentalism expanding? Because when times are tough, the tough may get going, but the majority hunker down and psychologically gravitate toward absolutes in an attempt to ward off insecurity. Fundamentalism provides answers, and regardless of the relative truth (blasphemy!) of those answers, they're comforting.
The cultural war is being fought as a proxy for the economic war that the lower and middle classes have been losing for the last 20+ years.
America's self-touted prosperity since the days of Reagan has largely been an illusion built on debt, overconsumption, and cooked books (along with the real benefits associated with the information technology boom).
As the gap between the rich and poor has increased, the proles have increasingly fixed their ire on what was once known as the counter-culture but has now become the dominant culture. It's not coincidental to the conservative mind that the decline of America began at roughly the same time that the counterculture emerged.
Liberals are the new Jews, the scapegoats that the ruling class throw to the masses to divert attention and responsibility.
Posted by Bragan at November 12, 2004 10:00 AMHOPE YALL LIKED BUSHES RECORDS OF SHAME. IF YOU STILL LIKE BUSH AFTER THAT THAN YOU ONE BIG DUMMY. SO IF YOU HAVENT READ BUSHES CRIMINAL RECORDES. YOU BETTER READ THEM. DEFFENTLY IF YOU ARE A BUSH SUPPORTER. PLEASE GO UP AND FIND THEM THEY ARE MY FIRST COMMENT, AND PISSED OFF KID USED THE FACTS BUSH WAS AND MAY STILL BE A COKEHEAD. HERES THE FACTS.
April 1972: Military institutes drug tests in routine exams, including urinalysis, questions about drugs and "a close examination of the nasal cavities" (for cocaine). Bush is due for this exam by August 1972.
May 1972 to May 1973: Bush leaves NG for Alabama without transfer orders; later requests transfer, which is granted then cancelled; he then applies for transfer to Alabama 187th Tactical Recon group, and is approved--but never shows up.
SO THESE ARE THE FACTS AND I GO DEEP TO FIND WHAT IM LOOKING FOR. SO IF I POST SOMETHING ITS GOING TO BE TRUE. SO ANYTHING YOU SEE POSTED BY LIL COOK ITS GOING TO BE TRUE. THIS IS THE 2ND BEST RAPPER ALIVE EMINEM IS THE 1ST REPORTING OUT THINK YOU FOR READING MY COMMENT. AND IF YOU WOULD PISSED OFF KID STOP CUSSING. AND ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS (EVERYONE) YALL HAVE GOOD COMMENTS. SO ILL POST A COMMENT LATER
LIL COOK 2ND BEST RAPPER ALIVE EMINEM THE 1ST SAYING BYE
Posted by Lil cook at November 12, 2004 10:13 AMBragen
"Liberals are the new Jews, the scapegoats that the ruling class throw to the masses to divert attention and responsibility."
There is a good deal of truth in what you say.
Oops, I deleted part of my last reply. On the economic stats:
people making less than $30K voted for Kerry
$30K-$50K per year were split
more than $50K per year voted Bush. (This is 55% of the population)
Bragan tries to make some point about the gap between the rich and the poor. But probably that's just some liberal sound bite thrown out in election years. The truth is that more folks are moving upwards in income. As noted above, 55% of people make more than $50K.
Since those making more than $50K tend to vote Republican and those making less than $30K tend to vote Democrat, an obvious Republican strategy is to simply increase wealth and decrease poverty. It's working. As income increases, the Republicans are gaining seats in Congress and more votes coming in for Bush in 2004.
Posted by muckdog at November 12, 2004 10:30 AMMatt,
Bush will do everything that they (Chrisitan Right) want. No question there. The question is-how will the rest of the country respond?
No, muckdog, the increasing gap between the rich and poor is no mere soundbite. It's all too real, as this Census Bureau paper details, and it's only gotten worse since Bush introduced his version of what his father appropriately called "Voodoo Economics."
More here, here. (Yes, that's a liberal blog, but I think you'll find his sources and logic to be quite sound.)
Posted by Bragan at November 12, 2004 11:08 AMHere's that Census Bureau report on inequality.
Posted by Bragan at November 12, 2004 11:10 AMCarson gets to talk about the "failure" of the Democratic party, blah, blah, blah, because we are all buying into this CW that there was a massive failure.
There was no massive failure here. Which Democrat did not feel good about our chances on Nov 2? which is what made Nov 3 unbearable.
We went all 15 rounds with another heavy weight and going into the 15th round we felt pretty darn good, but we lost on points. We pulled a Scott Norwood, wide right in Superbowl 25 or a Kevin Dyson (?) of TN, where TN lost the super bowl by a yard.
All of sudden we buy into the CW that we failed horribly and we are losers, etc. When it is all said and done, we are 50,000 votes short in OH, or 15,000 short in NM, or 13,000 short in IA. These are base numbers. We could easily have made up these numbers in our base, without any deep soul searching, not to mention if we correct a few things here and there, we could exceed that.
The Carsons and Clooney's of this world will keep railing agains the modernist elite Democratic Party and it'll stick if we keep buying into the CW that we failed. We did pretty good against tough odds and we are poised to do better.
How do you think the Republicans would react if the votes were reversed? They would not give an inch, they would spin and frame a victory out of this and claim a mandate. We've got to find a way to do our soul searching and at the same time, not feed the CW that there was a massive failure. There wasn't. We got to the big dance, we played hard and opponents now respect the heck out of us because they know if they don't we're coming back to kick their butts.
Like Steve, I like the paragraphs I saw until that dumb failure remark. Now, I don't think the whole article is all that smart.
Posted by Ono at November 12, 2004 11:23 AMCarson gets to talk about the "failure" of the Democratic party, blah, blah, blah, because we are all buying into this CW that there was a massive failure.
There was no massive failure here. Which Democrat did not feel good about our chances on Nov 2? which is what made Nov 3 unbearable.
We went all 15 rounds with another heavy weight and going into the 15th round we felt pretty darn good, but we lost on points. We pulled a Scott Norwood, wide right in Superbowl 25 or a Kevin Dyson (?) of TN, where TN lost the super bowl by a yard.
All of sudden we buy into the CW that we failed horribly and we are losers, etc. When it is all said and done, we are 50,000 votes short in OH, or 15,000 short in NM, or 13,000 short in IA. These are base numbers. We could easily have made up these numbers in our base, without any deep soul searching, not to mention if we correct a few things here and there, we could exceed that.
The Carsons and Clooney's of this world will keep railing agains the modernist elite Democratic Party and it'll stick if we keep buying into the CW that we failed. We did pretty good against tough odds and we are poised to do better.
How do you think the Republicans would react if the votes were reversed? They would not give an inch, they would spin and frame a victory out of this and claim a mandate. We've got to find a way to do our soul searching and at the same time, not feed the CW that there was a massive failure. There wasn't. We got to the big dance, we played hard and opponents now respect the heck out of us because they know if they don't we're coming back to kick their butts.
Like Steve, I like the paragraphs I saw until that dumb failure remark. Now, I don't think the whole article is all that smart.
Posted by Ono at November 12, 2004 11:26 AMMuck:
What proof do you have that the Republicans are decreasing poverty?
Posted by Steve Soto at November 12, 2004 11:42 AMI still think that the best way to defeat the Republicans is to show America that they are phonies and hypocrites when it comes to "moral values." If we don't take them on in the moral values debate, we will lose again.
Posted by MadHatter at November 12, 2004 11:57 AMFirst, it's not really party specific. Most of what happens in the economy isn't related to anything republicans or democrats do as a party. It's the capitalist system that provides the framework in the US. Whatever we do that supports capitalism, increases wealth and opportunity. Whatever we do that suppresses capitalism, decreases wealth and opportunity.
I've posted links before showing not a decrease in poverty, but an increase in middle-income folks increasing their wealth. There are more middle and upper income folks than ever.
Lets face it, Steve, Walmart workers aren't ever going to be rich. That's not the way free markets work. There are tons of programs to help low-income workers go to college or get trained.
The roll of government should be to provide the ladder. But people actually have to climb it themselves.
Posted by muckdog at November 12, 2004 01:53 PMI don't have an economics background, muck, but I fail to see where you answered Steve's question. Middle-income people aren't considered impoverished as I understand it. So any increase in their wealth or numbers still ignores the condition of the impoverished - and how the GOP has been 'helping' them.
Posted by pessimist at November 12, 2004 03:13 PMApprox. 70% of Americans are homeowners. That's a record. Over 50% of Americans are participating in the stock market. (I don't have a recent # on that, it's probably closer to 70% now...) As Bragan's links show above, wages are outpacing inflation. Unemployment is just over 5%, considered full employment in historic terms.
Times are really good for Michael Moore. Bush's re-election has given him the chance for a sequel!
Posted by muckdog at November 12, 2004 04:59 PMWe are Americans.
We are teachers, lawyers, bankers, and doctors.
We work in factories, warehouses, farmhouses and office buildings.
We attend sporting events, company picnics, church functions, and reunions.
...and we believe we are a united country.
We stand up and sing along when we hear the National Anthem and speak loudly when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
We know love and life-long commitment are the foundations of a family.
We honor those who dedicate their lives to serving and protecting our children, our families, and our freedom.
We honor those who gave their lives for freedom by respecting the freedom of our neighbors to live the lives they lead.
We know that God gives us the strength to succeed and the wisdom to know the difference between right and wrong.
We ask our teachers and parents to work together in order to help our children succeed.
We demand a maximum return for our tax investments and believe they should be used for the greater good.
We believe in the American birth-right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
We believe in empowering and giving voices to all Americans.
We believe in is both a right and responsibility to speak out where we feel there is injustice.
We believe in the sanctity of nature and that the beauty of America must be preserved.
We believe in cultivating a culture of service where we develop stronger communities built on empathy.
We believe in working hard and embracing progress in order to ensure better opportunities for our children.
We believe in our cultural inheritance set forth by our founding fathers to never be satisfied with the status quo.
We believe in being a beacon of hope and integrity for the rest of the world.
We are hard-workers, free-thinkers and freedom-lovers.
We are Americans.
-TCNJ 11/12/04
Posted by TCNJ at November 12, 2004 05:18 PMWhy is being Liberal a bad word. In every other industrialized country in the world liberals are proud of themselves. Even Conservative parties may add things like Progressive.
Why shy away from saying that health care for everyone is important.
Quality Education for all.
Negotiating cost effective drugs for seniors.
Revamping Social Security so that it doesn't collapse.
Effective trade policy.
Helping the enviroment.....In red states most affected.
Immigration policy...securing southern border...but granting amnesty for illegals already here.
Raising minimum wages.
Balancing budget.
Fighting against fat in government...be leaders fight every time republicans try to do it.
Make America a leader of the world as after 9 11 not after Iraq.
The contentious issues favor cival union for gays unfortunately USA not ready for Gay Marrriage
Use Clinton's answer to abortion rare and safe.
Be Proud to be Liberal
A Progressive conservative from Canada who is left of most of you.
Cam
Posted by Cam at November 12, 2004 05:36 PMMadhatter, I agree completely with both of your posts. In fact, I have said the same thing over and over again. You can't win when the enemy lobs hand grenades and you just sit there.
Posted by Judith at November 12, 2004 06:46 PMI think Bush is the one of the 4 worst presidents ever. He is in there with Bush Sr., Nixion, Grant. If you thank so to please reply.
Posted by lil cook at November 12, 2004 08:04 PMHi. How are you doing. I anint doing that good. there are a couple of reasons.(1st) Bush was re-elected on November the 2nd. (2nd) Hes a dumb COKEHEAD.(3rd) Our President is the dumbs person ever to be president. He graduated YALE COLLEGE with a C- the lowest grade to pass. So PLEASE SOMEONE LETS FIND A WAY TO GET HIM EMPEACHED.
PISSED OFF KID
SCREW BUSH & VP CHENY
Posted by lil cook at November 13, 2004 12:13 PM