Libs complain of Bush's Simplicity....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by -Cp, Nov 3, 2004.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    http://slate.msn.com/id/2109079/


    12:01 a.m. PT: Sigh. I really didn't want to have to write this.

    George W. Bush is going to win re-election. Yeah, the lawyers will haggle about Ohio. But this time, Democrats don't have the popular vote on their side. Bush does.

    If you're a Bush supporter, this is no surprise. You love him, so why shouldn't everybody else?

    But if you're dissatisfied with Bush—or if, like me, you think he's been the worst president in memory—you have a lot of explaining to do. Why don't a majority of voters agree with us? How has Bush pulled it off?

    I think this is the answer: Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.

    Bush is a very simple man. You may think that makes him a bad president, as I do, but lots of people don't—and there are more of them than there are of us. If you don't believe me, take a look at those numbers on your TV screen.
     
  2. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    -CP- at the same time he's complimenting Bush by the end. He has a message, a manner that works. Bush focuses on one issue... the Dems focus on hundreds of issues. he's telling the dems to simplify like bush has.
     
  3. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Yes. Dems refuse to rank issues in relative importance and focus on a couple. For instance: Environmental policy is irrelevant, if our nation is destroyed. Hence, national security is a more important issue. No ifs and or buts. But I know libs who will say the environment is more important than national security. When I ask them "How will the environmental policy even matter if the government that enforces it is destroyed by terrorism?" Then they just freak out and start sputtering.

    You know, the dems could have won this thing if they had put up someone sensible like Joe Lieberman.
     
  4. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    that's quite true, and lieberman would have had the common sense not to pull this stunt:

    to me kerry's final death knell was when he said he would PROSECUTE the war on terror. you don't prosecute monsters who murder children for sport, you wipe them off the face of the earth.
     
  5. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Yeah. What in the hell was Kerry thinking? even if he thought this, he shouldn't have said it out loud.
     
  6. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    That's what you get for having a lawyer as a running mate.
     
  7. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    bush's message is simple... i'm here to protect the american people, i destroy the terrorists, i defeat their sponsors, etc etc.

    kerry's was like "we should examine the birth of terrorism and try to prosecute the leaders while disenfranchising the followers and .......... then in the same breath he'd move on to the "need to protect social security"... "

    bush has the winning formula, the democrats at this point don't, at least not the ones in power.
     
  8. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    Bush mantra-like message was definitely what got him re-elected, but I've just been considering recently, and how big a threat is terrorism to the people who voted for Bush. Rural voters in middle America stand very close to 0% chance of ever being attacked by terrorists, so why is their biggest issue terrorism? Why do people forge their own personal economics (Bush was trusted less than Kerry, across the board, to handle the economy better) and vote for Bush on account of an issue which, for all intents and purposes, will not affect them?

    Along the same thread, why is it that those with the most to fear in terms of terrorism, New York, L.A., Chicago, Boston, Washington, etc. all voted for Kerry? I mean obviously its all about perspective, but this perspective seems to be flipped on its head.
     
  9. phadras
    Offline

    phadras Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Messages:
    270
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +17
    arrogance of that writer.. And his subheading of "Why you keep losing to this idiot"... My gawd the libs just do not get it... This arrogance and inability to see the truth is going to kill the Dem party.... They had better get their damned arrogance and throw it out or they will be a permanent minority party...
     
  10. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Let's flip this around. Why do people most at risk from terrorist attack vote for the guy who promises to treat terrorism as nothing more than domestic crime?
     

Share This Page