Saturday, November 06, 2004
Giving in
This opinion piece (link above) in the new york times says democrats need to become more like Republicans. On the one hand, it makes me sick. On the other, this election was sick...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The democrats just keep putting out inferior candidates...expect for Clinton...the democrats keep putting out losers....I mean...come on...nobody really liked Kerry that much. Everyone that voted for Kerry just hated Bush that much more. Sure, the democrats can try to go for more of the conservative base but they can also say just screw them. The problem with Kerry and his stupid campaign was that nobody knew what the hell he stood for. Dude...get a backbone. He said he was against the Iraq war...well, kind of...and he kept bringing up new issues to such as the whole flu vaccine fiasco to blame on the Bush adminstration, then the missing weapons in Iraq...everyday it was a new thing. It was as if he was just throwing darts at a board hoping one would eventually hit. He just looked desperate. And picking John Edwards? What the hell was up with that? That loser couldn't even carry his own state or any part of the south. Why don't the Democrats just say let's screw a big chunk of the country...just the Republicans did...if the Democrats just shore up their strengths and carry the Northeast, the West...and just concentrate on the Midwest...maybe aim for some of the Southwest...and just say screw the middle and south of the country...let them go back to washing their pickups and shooting their game...they could totally carry it. The Republicans did that to the coasts. Look...it doesn't matter which way the Democrats decide to do it...they just need a clear strategy....not a wishy washy one. If they want to move to the center...then fine...but they aren't going to get people out there to support them if they really want a serious change. Young people didn't get off their ass and vote for Kerry because they thought he wasn't that different from Bush.
Absolutely true that Kerry was not a great candidate. I thought Edwards was younger and more charismatic, so having him as a running mate was the best Kerry could do.
A couple more interesting NY Times commentaries. One says many voters were brainwashed or ignorant, but also responds to the 'moral' values argument:
http://nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08herbert.html.
The other by Gary Hart also comments on the religious element in the election: http://nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08hart.html. Both essentially say the version of religion which was used in the election was extreme, divisive. I also think the version of religion being sold in the election is not-rigorous, but typical lazy American style religion. It isn't reflective of compassion or any of the 'softer' religious virtues. This is a (white) man's macho/manly religion of judgement and punishment without self-sacrifice.
Post a Comment