Blogcritics: Comments on Kerry wins, but is on the way to losing. Big-time.

Comment by Mike Kole

Sat, 4 Sep 2004 23:16:50 EDT

But, as Hal pointed out with the initial post, hatred or being anti-Bush doesn't inspire anyone to like Kerry. This is basic politics. You know that you will have your base, and the Bush-hating crowd is your base (yes, unless they defect to Nader where he is even on the ballot). At the end of the campaing, which is the most important time, you are fighting over the fence-riders and undecideds, and these people are rarely won over by hate and negativity. In fact, hate and negativity tend to push this last, precious group of voters over to the other side. Hatred may be an intense motivator for you, but for the last, most important bloc of voters, positive platitudes tend to win the day, like it or not. It really is getting late in the day to be positive and rah-rah on Kerry, now that the biggest stage the Kerry campagin had- the DNC- has been squadered. It's incredible, really. Bush has been so vulnerable, and there is so much campaign history to learn from, but the Dems refused to play smart. Way to go. I was dreaming of the glorious gridlock under Kerry...

Comment by Copper

Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:07:32 EDT

Hatred is an intense motivator; I am involved in this election (as are most people I know volunteering, etc.) because we despise Bush and what he's done with the country. High numbers of people voting because they dislike Bush is good for Kerry--he has a lot more motivated footworkers because of it. (Virtually everyone I know who supported Nader in 2000 is actively working for Kerry today). Bush looks like a proto-fascist traitor to me, and I'm as motivated to keep him out as I would be Hitler.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:31:36 EDT

Two questions, RJ: 1. Where exactly do you see the extreme left in any of this? 2. Where exactly do you see the excuses? And more Bush would be inexcusable.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:02:56 EDT

Hmm... So the extreme Left is already making excuses for another four years of Bush? Music to my "fascist" ears... ;-]

Comment by Mark Saleski

Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:29:41 EDT

...and keep your eyes on FactCheck, where inaccuracies, fibs, etc. on both sides are discussed.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:04:40 EDT

A little more about propaganda for Andrew: the propaganda is being generated by the administration and their supporters. Karen Hughes is the most recent example of their tactic of lying smears. When she said:

"Now, I can understand if, out of conscience, you take a principled stand, and you would decide that you were so opposed to this that you would actually throw your medals. But to pretend to do so, I think that's very revealing." [CCN Transcript 04/26/2004]

it was a lie that falsely smeared Kerry. When she said:

Asked by host Wolf Blitzer how big an issue she thought abortion would be in this year's presidential election, Hughes responded: "Well, Wolf, it's always an issue. And I frankly think it's changing somewhat. I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life."

"And I think those are the kind of policies that the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life," she added. "It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately our enemies in the terror network, as we're seeing repeatedly in the headlines these days, don't value any life, not even the innocent and not even their own." [Washington Post 04/28/2004]

it was to connect pro-abortion advocates with terrorists, painting them as being morally equivalent. There are many, many more examples if you keep your eyes peeled and apply a bit of critical thinking. The thinking is necessary because the White House is very skilled at propaganda. Their "gas tax" commercial, for instance, leads you to believe that Kerry is running around trying to raise the price of gas by 50 cents. The truth is that he had raised the issue back in 1994, but is most definitely not doing so now. Their wording is such that their statements are technically accurate, but the ad produces a lie that smears Kerry. Their statements that Kerry voted against body armor for the troops is again technically accurate, but is still a smear because the truth is that he voted against a bill in which body armor was a minor part. Had there been a vote only on whether or not to provide body armor, it would have been a different situation - there wasn't, so he didn't. There are hundreds of lies, too many to go into, but it's almost like the old joke: "How can you tell a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving." It's not quite that bad, but when anyone from the White House or any of their supporters make claims about their opponents, it's worth cranking up your Skepticism Meter.

Comment by Shark

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:36:29 EDT

"You guys are like the Rush Limbaughs of the left." ...Except that we're not rich or fat. Thanks anyway!

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:35:56 EDT

Andrew, what on earth are you talking about?

Comment by kuros

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:33:26 EDT

all i know is it is getting increasing difficult to live in your heterosexual dictatorship

Comment by Andrew

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:22:41 EDT

You guys are like the Rush Limbaughs of the left. None of your posts have put any real thought into the opinions expressed...shame on you for preaching propaganda, when there are real important issues at stake. THINK please.

Comment by Shark

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:58:26 EDT

I saw that despicable speech; she did an implicit equation by saying that unlike pro-choice people and terrorists, her ilk VALUED LIFE. I'm for a free, government sponsored POST-PARTUM abortion for Karen Hughes mother.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:53:37 EDT

(Scratching head.) Anti-abortion and the war on terror connected? How? Does Hughes think swarthy Muslim terrorists are the ones knocking Right Wing girls up?

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:13:11 EDT

Apropos of lying, right-wing running-dogs of the administration, a few minutes ago, I watched a clip of Karen Hughes talking about Kerry and the Vietnam War-era incident at the White House fence:

"Now, I can understand if, out of conscience, you take a principled stand, and you would decide that you were so opposed to this that you would actually throw your medals. But to pretend to do so, I think that's very revealing."

Kerry did not pretend to throw anything - he threw his ribbons. In the military, the word "ribbons" is synonymous with "medals" - in fact, Kerry's "ribbons" were called "medals" by Senator Symington in the Senate hearing in which Kerry made his anti-war statement, way back when. For more on this, see "I watched Kerry throw his war decorations" 4/27/2004. The above clip was on the PBS News Hour, but I then caught a clip of Slimebag Hughes on The Daily Show where she tied the anti-abortion position to the war on terror (I couldn't quite follow her logic, but she seemed to think it made sense). Incredible. For more slime, stay tuned to this administration and their fellow-travellers.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:41:35 EDT

We need that show of strength, Mike and Hal. The religious Right is getting very antsy in regard to their claim the GOP should have the right to abortion on the ropes by now. Much of the attack on Arlen Specter is about that.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:43:09 EDT

"On the positive side, the pro-choice turnout on Sunday in DC shows that the Democrats can produce real organizing results" That put a glint in my eye, but notice it took the women to do it - the DNC is still playing patty-cake someplace in the south 40.

Comment by mike

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:33:36 EDT

On the positive side, the pro-choice turnout on Sunday in DC shows that the Democrats can produce real organizing results, if they just put their minds to it. As many as a million people, by best estimates, and a very young and racially diverse crowd. And fully exploited for political advantage by the Kerry people.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:28:55 EDT

Could it be true that many people prefer folks that are kind of dumb* and therefore non-threatening? That would explain the preference for Shrub. So, the solution may be for Kerry to somehow mask his intelligence behind a regular guy facade, as Bill Clinton did. *Not that I consider Shrub really stupid. Compared to many of the regular commenters at Blogcritics, he is brilliant. But, I have a high standard for leaders. I want them to be brighter than a little above normal.

Comment by Joe

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:38:34 EDT

Man, you guys sound kind of down. C'mon, all together now: "Just what makes that little old ant Think he'll move that rubber tree plant Anyone knows an ant, can't Move a rubber tree plant..." I can't hear you...

Comment by mike

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:32:18 EDT

I say habeus corpus is suspended within a year of Bush's re-election. And I'm starting a pool for the first Blogcritics prowar who supports it. Regrettable, but necessary in these tragic times, blah, blah, blah....

Comment by Shark

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:30:35 EDT

SHARK'S PREDICTIONS: 1) There is no way Kerry is going to win in November. NO WAY. The Bush Junta has already shown their propensity to steal a tactic from Malcom X; in Nov. 2000, they instigated "By Any Means Necessary" -- and over the last 3.5 years, they've shown they have no shame when it comes to tactics. 2) Bush reelection will occur either through manipulation of electronic voting machines, screwing with the actual voting process (see 2000 Florida 'federal' criminal 'round-up'), or a combination of both. 2) A major terrorist attack will occur on US soil shortly before the election. (possibilty 'martial law' instigated?) 3) Some major negative news event will occur in NY during the GOP Convention -- blamed on the "left" -- and having to do with 'terrorism' by an alleged liberal group. 4) Many more high-profile Bush token handouts to minorities, "the environment" [see President Wetlands Protector from last week], and swing states. Expect huge token handout to Hispanics. 5) If, by some strange twist, Kerry appears to be a huge leader before the election, the Bush Junta will pull a 'grassy knoll' on the guy before he can be elected. === end of psychic readings === BTW: I've decided I'm going to vote for Bush. Why? Because I love the "You break it -- you own it" approach, so I want to see the boy inherit his own apocalyptic world. Let him fuck himself in even larger historic terms. Let the nation and the world see the end results of the Neo-Con/Right Wing/Christian insanity. It's going to have to get much worse before it gets better. And Bush is the man to make it MUCH WORSE.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:01:07 EDT

The Dems need to start working on that now it's not like the other side isn't giving them enough to go on. the ads implying that kerry is weak on defense (also implying that kerry has voted against just about every major weapons program you can think of) are pretty much over-the-top wrong.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:34:23 EDT

But it's still odd why the number of Anybody But Bush people is supposed to be a reflection on Kerry and not on Bush. It's not a reflection on Kerry; it's reflection on the weakness of his support. When Bush finds Osama, jobs increase like crazy, some terrorist attack happens in the US, or whatever, a number of those "mostly voting against Bush" folks are going to vote for Bush. 6% already said they're ready to go to Nader now so Kerry has already lost those and that's most of his lead in California, where Democrats predominate. In other states, the Naderites have already cost Kerry the electoral votes. Small numbers are going to make a difference, so Kerry needs stronger support that will stick with him. The Dems need to start working on that now. Footnote: as far as your numbers go, Kerry beat Bush 49 to 39 in the poll, and this is in a heavily Democratic state.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:21:59 EDT

The specific numbers certainly don't matter. Kerry won the poll by 10% with Nader and 12% without him but that means nothing. The composition of the voters, hower, is a warning indicator that the DNC should pay attention to. Kerry can't be left out there as a punching bag if they want to win.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:20:05 EDT

I think my numbers are off. Being ahead by 10% would actually make it 55%, not 60%. But it's still odd why the number of Anybody But Bush people is supposed to be a reflection on Kerry and not on Bush.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:13:19 EDT

it's waaaaaay too early to be caring about poll results. that stuff's only important after the big gettogethers of the summer.