Libs complain of Bush's Simplicity....

[-Cp]

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.

 

[NATO AIR]

-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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

 

[NATO AIR]

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.

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

Yeah. What in the hell was Kerry thinking? even if he thought this, he shouldn't have said it out loud.

 

[Hobbit]

That's what you get for having a lawyer as a running mate.

 

[NATO AIR]

Yeah. What in the hell was Kerry thinking? even if he thought this, he shouldn't have said it out loud.

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.

 

[nakedemperor]

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.

 

[phadras]

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...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

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?

 

[Flying Duck]

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.

Your post reveals two things:

1) Democrats beleive everyone should vote based on their own personal interest or greed. This is why they cannot understand why others vote on principle. This is why you can't understand why someone making $40K doesn't support aggressive progressive taxation.

2) You seem to assume that anyone who wasn't killed on 9/11 wasn't affected. Do you remember the impact 9/11 had on the nation as a whole? The economy? Are you saying that if you're not killed by the next terrorist attack, you won't care about it?

 

[nakedemperor]

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?

I assume you're refering to the "nuisance" comment. In terms of the scope and magnitude of terrorism's affect on your everyday life before 9/11, many people would have likened the amount of care they gave to it as that of a 'nuisance'.

As for the domestic crime-- it was once percieved as a policable action because it was on par with other 'domestic' crimes (er, not household, which is what domestic crime denotes) in terms of its overall effect on the American people. By preaching the notion of a return to the times when you didn't NEED to worry about terrorism as anything too dissimilar from other crimes, was Kerry being too optimistic?

But yes, it is interesting that those most at risk didn't vote for Bush. Its like running on a "will fight for the poor" ticket and having 40% of the poor vote for you. I just don't understand why it happened.

 

[Flying Duck]

I don't understand why ANYONE votes for a Democratic Presidential Candidate - whether they live in a big city or not.

 

[nakedemperor]

Your post reveals two things:

1) Democrats beleive everyone should vote based on their own personal interest or greed. This is why they cannot understand why others vote on principle. This is why you can't understand why someone making $40K doesn't support aggressive progressive taxation.

2) You seem to assume that anyone who wasn't killed on 9/11 wasn't affected. Do you remember the impact 9/11 had on the nation as a whole? The economy? Are you saying that if you're not killed by the next terrorist attack, you won't care about it?

Uh, historically, people (across party lines) vote in their own self-interest. Its human nature. Its what happens. My post would have revealed my inherent greed and self interest had I believed that what I posted is what DID happen, not what SHOULD happen.

And no, I'm not saying if I'm not killed by the next terrorist attack I won't care about it. I'm saying that a phenomenon that kills (since Bush took office) ~1,000 people/year gets an inordinant amount of attention. Consider that 1.6 million people have died from smoking cigarettes since Bush took office. .8 million people have died from liver disorder. 1+ million people have died from drunk driving. It seems like too much attention is focused on international terrorism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Uh, historically, people (across party lines) vote in their own self-interest. Its human nature. Its what happens. My post would have revealed my inherent greed and self interest had I believed that what I posted is what DID happen, not what SHOULD happen.

And no, I'm not saying if I'm not killed by the next terrorist attack I won't care about it. I'm saying that a phenomenon that kills (since Bush took office) ~1,000 people/year gets an inordinant amount of attention. Consider that 1.6 million people have died from smoking cigarettes since Bush took office. .8 million people have died from liver disorder. 1+ million people have died from drunk driving. It seems like too much attention is focused on international terrorism.

Republican philosophy accepts the innate self interest you speak of and focuses it into productive use, commercial expression, SERVING THE MARKET NEEDS OF OTHERS for profit. You libs are the ones constantly saying people are evil and selfish, just for wanting to keep their own hard earned cash. When it comes to governance, conservatives actually do vote on principle, the principle that economic competition IS in the best interest of society.

Too much focus on international terrorism? Yeah. we should just let them get nukes and destroy us. NE. Your endless recitations of your idiocy are becoming tiresome.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

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.

If you look deeper in to the vote, across the board, morals were a bigger issue than the economy or the fight against terrorism. People put a higher regard on values than on terrorism the econmomy. Look at the those states that voted against gay marriage....look at the vote against the legalization of pot in Alaska. Morals trump all other issues.

Not to say I completely agree, but I would rather err on the side of abstinence and caution than the alternative.

 

[Trinity]

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.

I don't believe that terrorism was the key issue in rural areas, more likely the key issue was morals! Bush has them, Kerry doesn't!

 

[Zhukov]

But yes, it is interesting that those most at risk didn't vote for Bush.

Are you sure? I'd be willing to bet our soldiers voted overwhelmingly in favor to re-elect the President. Who's at more risk than them?

 

[dmp]

Are you sure? I'd be willing to bet our soldiers voted overwhelmingly in favor to re-elect the President. Who's at more risk than them?

I'm quoting data from The Army Times:

Active Duty:

72% Bush
17% Kerry
1% Nader
1% Other
6% Undecided
2% Declined to answer

Guard & Reserve:

73% Bush
18% Kerry
1% Nader
1% Other
5% Undecided
1% Declinded to answer


Data as of 11 October 2004 -
Survey of 4000 readers of Army Times who claimed to be active duty Uniformed servicemen/women.

 

[nakedemperor]

Are you sure? I'd be willing to bet our soldiers voted overwhelmingly in favor to re-elect the President. Who's at more risk than them?

Well obviously the troops are most in harm's way, but I mean civilians and terrorism. Manhattanites remained overwhelmingly in support of Kerry, which really doesn't make much sense to me when so many other people were swayed by the issue of terrorism.