Lessons Learned

[OldGreyEagle]

The 2004 election has some lessons we can all learn. What being steadfast in our beliefs can do. And we can learn a lot from the Democrats. We can learn that just knowing in your heart you are right isnt enough. You have to translate the message to something people can hear and not be insulted. The red states are not ready for a majority of the Democrats social agenda and that has to be tempered. Sometimes we have to accept people arent where we want them to be, but being insulting and arrogant and talking down to them doesnt work. People sometimes need to be gently guided to where we want them to be, grabbing them by the collars and yanking them along isnt the best-known method. We are all Americans, we all have common ground, we dont have to be divisive.

[dsteele]

OGE --

 

I agree 100%

 

I would probably swith the red state vs. blue state analogy to say that the blue state people aren't ready for republican values . . . but that's neither here nor there

 

The point is to work together and avoid being vague and insulting.

 

 

Unc.

[Bob White]

Got a question for the political "Why can't we all get a long" believers. When forged papers where presented as if they were fact, even when everyone knew the info was phoney, should the person who was attacked say "OK well everyone is entitled to their opinion." Or did he have a right to say "there is no truth to that and you knew it bfore you said it."?

 

Another question. Rather than have a public debate to define the difference in philosophy that exists between two well meaning parties, so that the undecided can make a choice, should the two parties pretend that they really agree on everything so that the undecided never learn the difference?

 

Just curious how you see it.

[LovetoCamp]

 

 

 

Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2004 9:48 a.m. EST

 

Brokaw: Kerry Blamed Low IQ Score on Drinking

 

John Kerry told NBC newsman Tom Brokaw last week that the reason President Bush outscored him on military intelligence tests was that he had likely been drinking the night before his exam.

 

Brokaw revealed Kerry's off-camera excuse in an election-morning interview with radio host Don Imus.

 

Story Continues Below

 

"I asked the question of John Kerry because the New York Times had reported that a man by the name of David Sailer had analyzed their military aptitude tests and then had had IQ experts do an analysis as well - or the Times did," the NBC anchorman explained. "And they concluded that George W. Bush might be a point or two higher than John Kerry in IQ."

 

Brokaw continued:

 

"And John Kerry was caught a little off guard, he said. 'Well, more power to him. I thought that that was not public.' And when the interview was over he said, 'I must have been drinking the night before I took that military aptitude test.'"

 

 

[fotoscout]

The real question is,,,Which one really belonged at Yale?

 

 

[gsmom]

I think Kerry's "excuse" was meant to be a JOKE! I do not think that Bush is unintelligent. I do believe that he has not used his intelligence, and that his judgment is seriously flawed.

 

 

Regarding, "can't we all just get along":

 

Conservatives have been equally divisive and insulting by accusing liberals and democrats who had legitimate criticisms of Bush's policies of being unpatriotic and aiding the terrorists. As I have said before, living out here in England, it is my opinion that Bush's policies have made us less safe. This is a legitimate criticism of his policies, and does not make me unpatriotic. It is a fact, not my opinion, that his policies, especially with regard to the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, have created the situation where our moral credibility in much of the world is now at about zero. It seems to me that this undermines one of his foremost policy goals: spreading democracy and freedom around the world. It is hard to spread democracy and freedom when you are not trusted.

 

 

[KoreaScouter]

I don't think liberals are unpatriotic, just wrong. Anyone is free to hold whatever opinions they want regarding the President's judgment, intelligence, world perception, whatever. What's important on election day is how many Americans agreed with that opinion, compared with the other candidate. On November 2nd, 59,000,000 Americans trusted the President.

 

KS

[NJCubScouter]

The red states are not ready for a majority of the Democrats social agenda and that has to be tempered.

 

OGE, I have a couple of questions:

 

1. What do you think the "Democrats social agenda" is, that the "red states" are not ready for?

 

2. Do you really think the result of this election was determined by whether people agreed with the candidates' "social agenda"? As opposed to say, peoples' perceptions of things such as which candidate would "stronger" in dealing with the "war on terrorism," and whether the war in Iraq is part of the "war on terrorism?" Or as opposed to people's perceptions of the candidates' personalities, or whether people liked the candidates' wives, or things like that? From where I sit, either of those factors played a larger role in this election than social issues, and regardless of which issue you look at, perception (as filtered through the "media," including talk radio and "pundits") played a bigger role than reality.

 

But I do agree with you in the sense that the Republican's methods of persuasion proved to be more successful. What that says about any particular issue, I don't know.

[dsteele]

At first I was going to avoid Bob White's question. I felt it was intended to spark debate.

 

I don't feel like a debate. I feel like using my personal freedom to express an opinion. If someone has a contrary opinion, feel free to post it. It won't bother me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if I don't happen to agree with it (I'd say, "peace, dude!" at this point, but that isn't my style.)

 

I don't think political peace or harmony between parties in the United States is sustainable. It appeared briefly after 9/11 and for a while during WWII and Korea, but it's the exception and not the rule.

 

I do think that peace between individuals is entirely possible. My mother and step-father are died-in-the-wool liberals and I have big-time problems with their political views. They have similar problems with mine and my brother's.

 

What do we do when we get together? We shoot pool and have a good time. Late in the evening, after several drinks (we don't get together often) one of us screws up and brings up politics. Generally there is an argument with anger on both sides.

 

However, it's quickly forgotten and there are hugs and kisses and much love felt when we part.

 

I don't see eye-to-eye politically with many of my friends and loved ones. I can't help it that they're all wet !

 

Or am I all wet?

 

Does it really matter.

 

A friend is a friend. A loved one is a loved one. Who cares if you agree on everything?

 

Issue 1 in Ohio last Tuesday was against gay marriage or any recognized facsimile. I have a sneaking suspicion that my wife voted against it. I don't know for sure and haven't asked. That's her business, not mine.

 

Yes, Bob, we can all get along. Not on every front, but we can get along if we work at it a bit.

 

As an illustration, I'd wager a lot that there are posters on these forums that if we both had the same punch-card ballots, chad-free and held them together in the light, there would not be a single ray of light passing through the two ballots.

 

But I bet we'd still get along over a cup of coffee or teaching a new scout patrol how to build a fire.

 

Unc.

[Eamonn]

I watched the red tiles march across the map. I heard Her Who Must Be Obeyed, rant on about John Kerry. She plain out and out didn't like him. I don't think much of George W. I will however admire his style of leadership. The guy does seem to have a flock of people who are very intelligent as his advisers, they lay out the facts and he takes action. I am not always in agreement with what he decides to do.

He is moving the Republican party further and further to the right. Looking back at what happened in the Maggie Thatcher years back home, she did very much the same thing. The actions of the Labour Party at that time, did more to keep the Conservative Party in office, than any true blue Conservative could ever have done. The end result was that the Labour Party had to move more to the center. In the end there was some sort of an erosion. It became impossible to see or know the difference between a left-wing conservative and a right-wing Labour party member.

To my way of thinking the Labour Party gave up their principles, forgot their history, marched on toward the center, not because they really believed in what they were doing, only knowing that this direction would lead them to victory. It worked Tony Blair and this watered down political agenda won.

The sad thing is that where we once had political parties that had strong ideals. Parties that stood for what they believed in, we now have little choice in true politics, we have a popularity contest.

George W. has stated that the election has given him "Political capital."Which he intends to spend. I see this as him moving the country further to the right. The Country has voted for this and he has every right to move ahead.

The Democrats are asking where they went wrong. Blame is plenty, more than enough to go round. I have heard that Kerry didn't get his point across well enough, his wife did or didn't do what she did or didn't do. Some are saying that any party with Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, will never win. In where ever these things are decided both the parties are more than lightly looking ahead, looking into crystal balls seeing who looks good for 2008. I wonder if the real question might be who is good looking enough for 2008. How many politicians, will not vote for what they believe in, because it might look bad in 2008? How many will not use the platform they have for fear of looking bad?

Will we end up with Tom Hanks v Tom Cruise and the debate be about the movies they have been in?

Still for now the people have spoken George W. Bush and the Republicans won the day. Hail To The Chief and God Bless The USA.

Eamonn.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You are correct. Nobody needs to insult another person's beliefs. If people believe something and they are in a majority, 51% to 48%, then they are in charge. The winner's agenda is then the agenda of the country. People can still disagree with that agenda but remain loyal Americans.

 

Insulting George Bush's or John Kerry's intelligence based on an aptitude test is missing an important point. Aptitude is indirectly related to intelligence and says more about achievemnet and specific abilities. This type of test is used to place people in vocational tracks. The overall profile is more imortant than the number of points scored in any one domain area. These tests can be used to screen people "out" of a vocation but both person's scored high enough to enter the service. Both went to college. Both served their country. Both are serving their country now.

 

FB

[firstpusk]

What I learned it that it is possible to win a national election in the United States on the basis of fear-mongering, lies and bigotry. God bless our President that has taken mendacity to such extremes...and God bless America. We're going to need it.

[eisely]

One lesson is that a guy like Kerry cannot achieve early political success by slandering his brothers in arms and expect to walk away from that and into the presidency without being called out by those he slandered.

[Hunt]

What I noticed this election--and you can see it right here in this thread--was that I heard many people on both sides saying, "I don't see how anybody could possibly be fooled by that guy." I've never seen this to such an extent before. I know people who seem to believe Bush is both evil and an idiot. I know people who seem to believe Kerry is both evil and a lying coward. I see people ready to believe anything bad about the other guy, no matter what the source is or how credible it is.

[firstpusk]

Pretty careless with the truth eisley. What was the context of Kerry's 1971 testimony or do you only listen to the Swiftboat Liars funded by Bush?