WHY BUSH REALLY WON

[whometense]

Please read this essay. I think it's absolutely brilliant, as it makes sense of the election in a way no one else seems to have been to do - at least to my satisfaction. I could quote every word here.

The learned scribes and pundits who portray President George W. Bush as ignorant, irresponsible and reckless somehow have managed to miss the salient point - that is the reason Americans elected him. These unstatesmanlike qualities are considered virtues by certain voter(s), and that has been the least understood phenomenon of the last election.

<snip>

...Right now, liberal-oriented political clubs and Internet-mediated organizations are continuing their fight against the Republican agenda by holding public forums and Internet discussions. They talk about how to snare the antiabortion voter or the southern Protestant. They despair over the fact that their own moral values were rejected by the other side's moral values.

It is painful to watch.

I suggest that they are barking up the wrong tree. The red state voters may have told pollsters that they were voting for moral values, but in reality they were voting for amoral values. None of them quite admitted it, but that is what they did. They had the chance to vote for a Bible-toting incumbent who managed to communicate by the wink and the nod that he would be immoral on their behalf, and they took him up on it. It was the best of all possible worlds for voters with those needs.

For the other side, it is crucial that an accurate diagnosis be made of why the Democratic Party has managed to lose once again. All the excuses going around currently lead back to the same electoral defeat because they misstate the real issues.

Political analysts figured out that President Bush somehow made voters feel more secure about terrorism, but they never managed to explain why. They were not realistic enough, or perhaps honest enough, to get to the bloody heart of the matter.

What do you think????

[ginnyinWI]

1. Wow

That is one eye-opening article. It explains in more depth the same idea that JK alluded to--that it was 9/11 and fear that made people afraid to change.

The image of the repub party as more hawkish is accepted, but this writer takes it further--saying that they actually wanted a president who would be cruel and ruthless (and hypocritical about it). Kerry was too principled to be tough enough to make sure we stayed safe! To them it didn't matter which was the smarter, more capable man, they only wanted someone willing to be a brute. The very thing that the other half of us are so appalled by.

They trusted a brute over a "brain". I guess they got what they wanted.
And Kerry made them feel guilty, because he has principles: he critized the committing of war crimes in Vietnam. But even if he hadn't, he would still not have appeared as thuggish as Bush, and that was what those voters were looking for. A thug to protect them. :scared:

edit: so if this premise is true, Abu Garaib only helped Bush!

So are we ever going to see a different kind of president in our lifetimes? If they only knew that Kerry offered the best resume for a president able to fight a smart war against terror!!!

[whometense]

2. Thanks, Ginny,

When I read it the hairs literally stood up on the back of my neck. It makes sense to me on so many levels.

It's not a pretty picture, is it? But to me, all the talk about "moral values" voters has simply not felt true, somehow. This was the first eureka!! moment for me since the election.

If you combine the ideas from this essay with the Bradley op-ed you posted, the path to future Democratic victories looks very different. Pandering on abortion is not only dishonest and sleazy, it's also completely beside the point!

[Pirate Smile]

6. I think a lot of people don't want to know what the Government is

really doing behind the scenes which is one reason why the Bush Administration doesn't seem to get punished for its secrecy and propaganda efforts.

[karynnj]

8. Abu Garaib helped Bush - disgusting!

It is true that if you want a President who is willing to torture people suspected of being terrorists, often based on little or no valid information, John Kerry would not be your choice. In fact, his 1971 protests might have been a weird asset if he won in convincing the Iraqis that they could trust him in trying to put his plan to work to get out. His genuine commitment to multinational diplomacy might have worked.

The odd thing then is that even if the contra and BCCI investigations were emphasized more, they might have shown Kerry as a tough, strong man, but they would also have made the fact that he has principles and moral values even more obvious. They would have probably still chosen the team that is willing to cheat, lie and fight dirty. Maybe this is why the liklihood that he cheated in the first debate wasn't even an issue.

The sad thing is it means that a large percent of this country have blood on their hands. The moral voters thing never made sense to me, because the comparison of Bush's life to Kerry's is a comparison of extremes. Kerry was a good student, an athlete, a champion debator, conversing with leaders of the country when they came to Yale / Buah was a champion drinker, frat president - who got attention by branding people. Kerry was clearly the good guy.

[whometense]

11. Exactly.

I don't want to think these things about a significant portion of my countrymen, but...

The moral voters thing never rang true for me either. It just didn't. I never believed so many people could be blinded by all those lies. But the power of self-deception is much, much stronger...

[ginnyinWI]

14. hypocrites all

This is my new favorite word lately, with the Schiavo stuff going on.

What kind of moral equivocating does it take to profess to have Christian values, then basically say to Bush, "just get the terrorists, and don't tell me how you do it." They had to lie to themselves to get rid of the contradiction. "I support Pres'dent Boosh--he's a good mayan."
But then people have been willing to accept a lot of atrocities in the name of country or religion, down through the ages. Sadly we seem to have not progressed much.

Yeah, this seems to ring a lot more true than to think that they all just wanted a good Christian in the White House, or voted the way their church told them to. Tons of rural people don't go to church, but are very hawkish.

[rockymountaindem]

3. I don't have time to read this

but it seems like something you should post in GD for all the bashers to have a look at. This should help combat the notion that Bush was "the most hated Pres. ever".

Not true! Bush has ardent followers all over the place! I guess these Manhattanites and San Fransiscans just never see them.

[ginnyinWI]

4. that's a good idea whome--post it in GD!

We Kerrycrats know that the election result wasn't JK's fault, and that he worked his heart out--this article and the Bradley op-ed today might give GD the one-two punch to show them why we feel that way.

[whometense]

5. I put it in 2004 election results -

seemed the most appropriate place. I could put it in GD too, but don't want to be accused of spamming the board.

[whometense]

7. Wow,

haven't been over there in a while. Still just as nutso as ever. How can Bush have won, if it was stolen?

I admit to some sympathy for that postition, as I still think it was stolen. But that still doesn't account for why all those so-called "morality" voters could vote for a stupid thug like Shrub.

They pointed me towards this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x350762 thread, which is interesting.

[karynnj]

9. My daughter voted in Manhattan

She said that everyone was talking to each other in line as they waited to vote. At her college, she knew no one who was voting for Bush. She was absolutely shocked when her Chicago area cousin sent her an im that their North Carolina cousin was going to vote for Bush.

[whometense]

10. Other thread is

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=350767&mesg_id=350767

Some of these people really have their heads up their...well, you know what I mean. Anything that says "Bush won" is by definition unacceptable, and therefore not worthy of consideration. They remind me of the fatheaded repukes who come around and read our blog on a regular basis and leave insulting comments.

I still think the election was stolen. And yet, * got enough votes to make theft doable. Can't both things be true at the same time???

[JI7]

12. right, just the way i see it

even assuming they cheated, the fact is that the Republicans are doing well. why was it as close as it was in 2000, why did he get as many votes as he did in 2004 also. and it's not just him, but the other Republican candidates. look at the Senate races. every single one of them had Democratic candidates who were far superior yet the republicans won.

and even going further back even someone as charismatic and talented as clinton never got majority of the votes. he only got 43 percent in 1992 and 49 percent in 1996. jimmy carter who had all the assets of being a southerner , christian, governor etc against a dufus like ford won by majority but still a small majority.

bill clinton talked about this at the dnc tribute to mcauliffe.

so as you say, even assuming they stole it was still a close race. after 2000 the republicans knew it was close and they worked on it. rather than convincing everyone bush really won they just went to work on building up more support for the next elections. the democrats on the other hand tended to keep trying to convince everyone that we really won. there was no work on GOTV until after Kerry became the presumed nominee.

[Firespirit]

13. I don't go in that place anymore.

Figure I'm doing more good working alone on something to fix the system rather than bitching and moaning about what can't be undone.

Anyway, yeah I think OH and probably NM were stolen, but I don't know... Bush may well have won the national vote without cheating. I doubt we'll ever know that for certain. (Kind of on the subject, thank goodness there are people trying to settle that question about the suspect states.) The only evidence that he didn't is the exit poll, and I'm not even going to touch that, because there are conflicting reports on whether it was a valid sample. Guess we have to wait till the raw data are made available.

But anyway, for whatever reason, about half the people in this country liked something about him well enough to vote against not just the greater good, but against their own self interest, and that's a problem.

However--and maybe this is just a bit of "lefty freeperism"--but I don't know what we should try to appeal to people who are attracted to thuggishness and schoolyard bully behavior. JMHO.

[ginnyinWI]

15. yes sure they can both be true.

We know for a fact that they supressed the vote at the very least; that's documented. I can easily believe that they could have changed votes in the tabulators. It has been shown how easy it is to do. And ruthless thugs will not let a democratic election get in their way.

The article you posted just explains why the ones who voted for * did it, and that still doesn't mean they were in the majority. Those voters were mostly southern and/or rural, and Kerry got the urban vote country-wide, right?. That says something about each kind of voter. Kerry also got the moderate/indy vote, the youth vote, and the women's vote, according to him, so that would fit with the theory. All of those groups would be more averse to violent thuggery, I'm guessing.

So maybe we don't need to be quite as sickened and disgusted by this. Maybe the majority still favor the rule of law, diplomacy, and intelligent leadership. Let's hope so!

[TayTay]

16. News Item: 3/31/05, Okay Whome, ya gotta point

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050331/LOCAL/50331007/1078/news

Man gets 90 days for attack over politics
FORT LAUDERDALE - An 18-year-old man was sentenced to 90 days in jail Wednesday for attacking his girlfriend after learning she planned to vote for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry last fall.

Steven Soper pleaded guilty to false imprisonment, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, battery and resisting arrest without violence.

In addition to three months in the Broward County Jail, Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga sentenced Soper to five years of probation and 100 hours of community service. The judge also ordered Soper to write a letter of apology to 18-year-old Stacey Silveira.

Same story, only longer: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pbush31mar31,0,4570578.story?coll=sfla-news-palm

[whometense]

17. Wow.

Made-to-order, huh?

Sounds like the girl was lucky - she wasn't married to him yet. :scared: