Thursday, May 27, 2004
I was watching Inside Politics yesterday. Judy
Woodruff did a round-table discussion with 6
Pennsylvania voters, 3 Democrats and 3 Repubs.
Now, the Democrats said all the usual stuff we expect,
nothing new that we haven't said so far on this list
or to our friends. But the Republicans were really
eye-opening.
Even though I know that America is comprised of tens
of millions of truly dumb people and way too many
fundamentalists, given my liberal social circle, I
sometimes forget what we're dealing with and need a
reminder. The answers the Repubs gave to Judy
Woodruff were just that.
- In answer to the question Why did you vote for Bush
in 2000, one Repub answered: "I hoped that he would
bring more Christianity to our country."
- What do you think about Bush wearing his faith so
openly? "I think it's wonderful. I'm so comforted by
the fact that our president prays to a higher power."
- What do you think of John Kerry? "Well, I saw this
thing on TV where he said he threw his medals away,
but then he apparently really didn't. That bothers
me."
- Why don't you support John Kerry. "Because there are
some things he will do in this country that I don't
believe in." Like what? "Well, I don't believe in
gay marriage for instance."
Besides the obvious messianic Christianity stuff, what
struck me so hard was the willingness of these people
to buy the RNC talking points hook, line and sinker.
For instance, the fact that the faux-medal controversy
bothered this woman, or that they believed that Kerry
= gay marriage.
It's the fruits of the Republican strategy in action.
If you ever ask yourself, "Man, why are they focusing
on such bogus stuff like Kerry and his medals and gay
marriage instead of important world affairs?" here is
your answer: because their base swallows it down whole.
As Jeneane Garafalo said once on Air America, the Bush
Administration is a faulty product with a great
marketing department and a willing audience. Seeing
the sheer stupidity of the American public and how
easily they are blinded to substantive issues by
Republican marketing, while not a surprise, was still
shocking to see in action.
Woodruff did a round-table discussion with 6
Pennsylvania voters, 3 Democrats and 3 Repubs.
Now, the Democrats said all the usual stuff we expect,
nothing new that we haven't said so far on this list
or to our friends. But the Republicans were really
eye-opening.
Even though I know that America is comprised of tens
of millions of truly dumb people and way too many
fundamentalists, given my liberal social circle, I
sometimes forget what we're dealing with and need a
reminder. The answers the Repubs gave to Judy
Woodruff were just that.
- In answer to the question Why did you vote for Bush
in 2000, one Repub answered: "I hoped that he would
bring more Christianity to our country."
- What do you think about Bush wearing his faith so
openly? "I think it's wonderful. I'm so comforted by
the fact that our president prays to a higher power."
- What do you think of John Kerry? "Well, I saw this
thing on TV where he said he threw his medals away,
but then he apparently really didn't. That bothers
me."
- Why don't you support John Kerry. "Because there are
some things he will do in this country that I don't
believe in." Like what? "Well, I don't believe in
gay marriage for instance."
Besides the obvious messianic Christianity stuff, what
struck me so hard was the willingness of these people
to buy the RNC talking points hook, line and sinker.
For instance, the fact that the faux-medal controversy
bothered this woman, or that they believed that Kerry
= gay marriage.
It's the fruits of the Republican strategy in action.
If you ever ask yourself, "Man, why are they focusing
on such bogus stuff like Kerry and his medals and gay
marriage instead of important world affairs?" here is
your answer: because their base swallows it down whole.
As Jeneane Garafalo said once on Air America, the Bush
Administration is a faulty product with a great
marketing department and a willing audience. Seeing
the sheer stupidity of the American public and how
easily they are blinded to substantive issues by
Republican marketing, while not a surprise, was still
shocking to see in action.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Welcome to all past readers from the Kerry and Clark for president blogs. Welcome to my new blog which is going to be an analysis of the race without a firm commitment to a candidate, except, of course, the Democratic nominee. As many did during this primary campaign season, I vacillated between a couple different options.
At first I was a Kerry supporter, but was disillusioned by his disorganized campaign that seemed to focus purely on negative campaigning. This drove me to Clark as I was firmly looking for an alternative to Howard Dean, a candidate who has made a big difference to the democratic race, but I just didn't like.
Then something happened: Kerry changed his campaign, stopped the little sniping at Dean, focused more on his own message and started winning. Now Kerry is on the ups and Clark is starting to fade.
And that's fine with me, especially since Dean is trickling away into the night. But, as infuriating as it is, many of his supporters are already saying they'll sit this vote out and refuse to vote for Kerry. Take a look at this article from salon about the Deaniacs.
This article raises some interesting points. One being the emotional commitments involved when you passionately support a candidate. Everyone else is your enemy in a primary and it's hard to imagine voting for your enemy. But what's also there is a HUGE amount of denial. The number of people who blame the media and special interests on Dean's defeats is astounding. Okay, I'm the first to admit the media is screwed up and has all sorts of biases (most of the right-wing).
But Deaniacs forget the basic fact that the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire had 1-2 years to get to know Dean. And I mean personally. Almost all the voters there went to a Dean event and saw the man in person. And Dean finished a distant third in Iowa. Did that happen because CNN manipulated the opinions of Iowa farmers?
It's hard to admit when you fall in love with someone that not everyone will love that person. But it's a fact. The vast majority of Dems I know simply did NOT like Dean. I know, it's hard for Deaniacs to swallow. But the guy never turned us on the way he turned you on. We never fell in love with him. And, with respect, you're not smarter than I am. I'm not more susceptible to media manipulations. At no point, when Dean was obscure or when he was on the cover of Time and Newsweek, did I like or support the guy. Of course I'd vote for him as the nominee, but I didn't want to have to. And his self-righteous arrogance in this campaign in which he seems to have bought into the Jesus/savior-worship that his supporters bestow upon him has really got many of us die-hard Dems upset.
Calling Kerry a Republican was the final straw. That's not excusable. Dean didn't like it when he was compared to Newt and why should Kerry like it being compared to Dubya? Especially since the comparison is so erroneous. But more than that, it's petulant. It's whiny, schoolchild behavior.
It comes down to an undeniable fact: Howard Dean has limitations as a candidate. He has helped the Dems by strengthening their backbones, but at the end of the day the majority of voters don't love the guy. Those that do are impassioned. Best description of his support I heard was that his support was narrow, but deep. Fair enough.
But conspiracy theories aside, at one point Deaniacs are going to have to accept that there are many of us who just aren't into the guy. And we are just as committed to Democratic, liberal principles as you are. Call me Bush-lite to my face and see what happens.
I realize there are emotions involved, but I blame Dean for painting a guy like Kerry as Bush-lite. Even going to far as to call him Republican. A man who has over a 90% liberal voting record. A man endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters. A man who pushed for increased fuel efficiency for cars. Yes, this is all going to be tossed overboard because a) he voted for the Iraq War resolution, and b) Deaniacs are selfish.
Yes, it's selfish. How many of the Deaniacs are poor? How many of them are living next to polluting factories and have children with asthma? How many of them are getting creamed by George W. Bush's right-wing policies? My guess is very few. If they were, they'd be far less apt to get off their high horses and vote for a candidate who is WORLDS apart from Bush.
My only hope is that this phenomenon is limited to a minority of Dean supporters and that in time they'll get over their emotional commitment to Dean. In time, that is, to vote for the Democratic nominee.
At first I was a Kerry supporter, but was disillusioned by his disorganized campaign that seemed to focus purely on negative campaigning. This drove me to Clark as I was firmly looking for an alternative to Howard Dean, a candidate who has made a big difference to the democratic race, but I just didn't like.
Then something happened: Kerry changed his campaign, stopped the little sniping at Dean, focused more on his own message and started winning. Now Kerry is on the ups and Clark is starting to fade.
And that's fine with me, especially since Dean is trickling away into the night. But, as infuriating as it is, many of his supporters are already saying they'll sit this vote out and refuse to vote for Kerry. Take a look at this article from salon about the Deaniacs.
This article raises some interesting points. One being the emotional commitments involved when you passionately support a candidate. Everyone else is your enemy in a primary and it's hard to imagine voting for your enemy. But what's also there is a HUGE amount of denial. The number of people who blame the media and special interests on Dean's defeats is astounding. Okay, I'm the first to admit the media is screwed up and has all sorts of biases (most of the right-wing).
But Deaniacs forget the basic fact that the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire had 1-2 years to get to know Dean. And I mean personally. Almost all the voters there went to a Dean event and saw the man in person. And Dean finished a distant third in Iowa. Did that happen because CNN manipulated the opinions of Iowa farmers?
It's hard to admit when you fall in love with someone that not everyone will love that person. But it's a fact. The vast majority of Dems I know simply did NOT like Dean. I know, it's hard for Deaniacs to swallow. But the guy never turned us on the way he turned you on. We never fell in love with him. And, with respect, you're not smarter than I am. I'm not more susceptible to media manipulations. At no point, when Dean was obscure or when he was on the cover of Time and Newsweek, did I like or support the guy. Of course I'd vote for him as the nominee, but I didn't want to have to. And his self-righteous arrogance in this campaign in which he seems to have bought into the Jesus/savior-worship that his supporters bestow upon him has really got many of us die-hard Dems upset.
Calling Kerry a Republican was the final straw. That's not excusable. Dean didn't like it when he was compared to Newt and why should Kerry like it being compared to Dubya? Especially since the comparison is so erroneous. But more than that, it's petulant. It's whiny, schoolchild behavior.
It comes down to an undeniable fact: Howard Dean has limitations as a candidate. He has helped the Dems by strengthening their backbones, but at the end of the day the majority of voters don't love the guy. Those that do are impassioned. Best description of his support I heard was that his support was narrow, but deep. Fair enough.
But conspiracy theories aside, at one point Deaniacs are going to have to accept that there are many of us who just aren't into the guy. And we are just as committed to Democratic, liberal principles as you are. Call me Bush-lite to my face and see what happens.
I realize there are emotions involved, but I blame Dean for painting a guy like Kerry as Bush-lite. Even going to far as to call him Republican. A man who has over a 90% liberal voting record. A man endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters. A man who pushed for increased fuel efficiency for cars. Yes, this is all going to be tossed overboard because a) he voted for the Iraq War resolution, and b) Deaniacs are selfish.
Yes, it's selfish. How many of the Deaniacs are poor? How many of them are living next to polluting factories and have children with asthma? How many of them are getting creamed by George W. Bush's right-wing policies? My guess is very few. If they were, they'd be far less apt to get off their high horses and vote for a candidate who is WORLDS apart from Bush.
My only hope is that this phenomenon is limited to a minority of Dean supporters and that in time they'll get over their emotional commitment to Dean. In time, that is, to vote for the Democratic nominee.
