Global, Identity, Politics

American Jews overwhelmingly reject Bush

“According to a survey conducted by the National Election Pool, only 22% voted for the reelected President Bush, a 3% rise in comparison with the 2000 elections.

The Bush camp expected Bush would win at least 30% of the Jewish vote in America. In the states of New York, Florida and California, which are home to large Jewish communities, the numbers were even lower than the 22% figure.”

full story

92 thoughts on “American Jews overwhelmingly reject Bush

  1. I’ll take your post as a constructive criticism of American Jews. Certainly an area that needs work. However, do you have any stats regarding how younger Jews (under 50, under 40) voted? We may find a silver lining.

  2. So what does this tell us? (1) American Jews are not single issue voters, and (2) if they are, then they don’t think Bush is particularly good for Israel after all, because if you look at issues that Jews classically care about such as social justice and welfare, human rights and education, Bush fails miserably.
    And in all honesty I don’t think that you’re going to see great deviations among the voting patterns of different age groups, especially given that if you were to have decided the election based on the voting of 18-29 year olds in this country, Kerry would have broken 300 electoral votes, easy.

  3. Poor Joshua. Did you think I mentioned the younger Jewish voters as a kind of Hail Mary pass? No sir. Look upon the future of Jewish voting, ye Democrats, and despair. Even your silver lining is tarnished.

  4. If anyone is interested in John “the goy” Brown’s credibilty/sensibilty check out his website for stories such as:
    “Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat was poisoned by Israel, one of his advisers said Sunday.”
    This is the silver lining…

  5. Also from the John Brown’s site. I am certainly no fan of either LGF or censorship however isn’t “radioislam” affiliated with Jewwatch? Why do Jews feel obligated to give their worst, most irrational enemies a platform?
    I hadn’t heard of LGF. They sound very ignorant, and as more people become informed, they will appear even more so.
    And here is Radio Islam. You can see why they are a pain in the side of the ADL, and the Zionist war machine. http://www.radioislam.org/
    Heck, the Jews even tried to silence Martin Luther. He was their friend until he read their Talmud. Now we hear poor old Martin Luther ended up a crazy old anti-Semite. Protestants should know what their founder had to say, before the Jews silence him forever. Banning speech is not the answer. Education is.
    Martin Luther on The Jews and Their Lies
    http://www.radioislam.org/luther/index.htm , and more insight into the Jewish question. Read it while you still can.

    http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/index.php?q=node/4323&CSID=89ac44d9e7ffe46dc169010286a900a7#comment

  6. I’m not so sure that I trust the numbers either. My dad’s in Florida in one of the largest mostly-Jewish communities there. According to him, almost all of the people he knew claimed to be voting Bush and were especially influenced by a large number of ads run by the Republicans featuring [ex-NYC mayor and Democrat [but barely]] Ed Koch.
    He was really surprised when I told him the 22% percent number. Obviously this is not scientific or anything like that…
    Oh, and BTW, why are you people talking about Martin Luther? Can’t you go rant somewhere else? There was nothing even mildly offensive in te original post or his follow up here. Quit the ad hominen attacks, make a point if you have one.

  7. The only Jews voting GOP (as a block) are Orthodox – to my great embaressment. As I’ve said on my own blog: Orthodox Jews ought not be thinking about the world in the same way that bible-thumping hillbillies think about the world….The conventional wisdom among the elementary school set, my daughter reports, was that Kerry was bad for the Jews. They got that, obviously, from their parents, though I can’t say what their parents read. Probably nothing.
    dovbear
    dovbear.blogspot.com

  8. All of these posts about % of votes going to one candidate or the other is meaningless. They are all based on exit polls and polls are only estimates based on data that is then manipulated to produce results. A ‘good’ statistian can get a poll to say what ever they want based on how a question is asked and how the numbers are tallied.
    Besides the larger Jewish Vote for President Bush may have been an anomoly based on the situation and the other candidate.
    I’ve stated it else where, if the Democrats had put up a monkey against the President it would have garnered 40% of the vote just on the basis of the fact that it wasn’t President Bush. And if the Republicans had run a monkey against Senator Kerry it would have garnered 40% of the vote just based on the fact that it wasn’t Senator Kerry. A sad state but I would have to say true none-the-less. The truly sad part is people seem to be completely unable to get beyond the election. If you want to see a change in the electoral results in 2008 I have only two things to say. Start working to get an electable Democrate on the ballot now, and try to stop Hillary from getting the nomination, because she is likely to be un-electable in 2008 despite who her husband is and how well liked he was even with his human weaknesses.

  9. DovBear says:
    “They got that, obviously, from their parents, though I can’t say what their parents read. Probably nothing.”
    A man so condescending, he translates his own name. So, DovBear, let’s play: What did you read? I’d love to know. Did it include, say, Commentary magazine? If not, why not? Oh, let me guess – I bet you read the New York Times. Wow. Not everyone can understand the fifth-grade level writing. I’ll bet you still think it’s the paper of record.
    Gee, why do so many people resent the Democrats? I give you Exhibit A.
    If you ever deign to make any actual, y’know, arguments, my Commentary/ New Republic/ NY Review of Books / Weekly Standard/ American Prospect/ National Review /Azure – reading, Bush- voting self will be happy to take you on.

  10. A word on the name “Dov Bear”- that’s a pretty standard issue old school Jewish name. You, J, are just gettin lazy it comes to laying down the slams.
    I’ve had the same experience as Dov- I’m orthodox and a Dem. My kids came back from school with anti-Kerry rhetoric as well.
    I’m very tired of Rabbis and schools allowing partisan politics where they don’t belong (I’d feel this way if they preached in either direction.)
    Maybe that’s crazy liberal of me but I like my Church and State seperated.
    Oh and I agree with the little wolf- no Hillary in 2008, even I’d have a VERY hard time electing her over Bush.

  11. hey, only a precinct analysis of heavily jewish areas this election v. 4 years ago is going to tell us how jews voted; one blogger is estimating that 30 – 40% of jews voted for bush. more importantly, why, when someone is trying to be your friend and you reject them, should you expect them to stay friendly with you?

  12. Our orthodox shul roughly split 50-50 Kerry-Bush.
    Those that voted for Bush only looked at Israel, and “held their nose” at everything else (I heard mention of Rabbi Shalom Yosef Elyashiv’s opinion that American Jews should vote for Bush). There is only one in one hundred that gives across-the-board support for the Republican party.
    Those that voted for Kerry mentioned Bush’s lack of compassion for the poor, fear of Christian fundamentalism, and worry about the Iraq adventure creating more terrorism. There was no worry about support of Israel.
    The point is well made – 50/50 in our frum-ish neighborhood is much higher than the overall average of 20ish percent for Bush among Jews.

  13. Don’t the Orthodox Jews who voted for Bush realize that the Christian right does not share your values? They only want to convert you? They want to “love you” out of existence.

  14. Susan:
    What does the Christian right’s values have to do with why a Jewish person chooses to vote for Bush.
    For a point of record, I am a Democrat that voted for President Bush. Israel was an issue for me but not my only issue. The main reason I didn’t vote for Senator Kerry was a lack of any idea of what he hoped to accomplish over the next 4 years. I have a feel for how President Bush will ‘rule’ over the next 4 years.
    The real issue has nothing to do with the election of a week ago. It is in the past, as a party the Democrats need to look at the next step. The mid-term elections in two years. We need to look at all of the open Gubenitorial seats (Such as Ohio) and find qualified candidates for them. We also need to find weak Congressmen and Senators.
    Then in 4 years we MUST find a candidate that can communicate with his ideas much better than our last two candidates, and someone who WILL appeal to the centrist elements in this country. As I have stated before. Right now with the way the country is a monkey would get an automatic 40% of the vote just for not being the candidate of the other party.
    J: Why is translating a Hebrew name into English automatically mean someone is being condesending? I am using a translation of my Hebrew name. (Mostly because there is some already posting using my Hebrew name) but I happen to like the way the translation sounds as well.

  15. You guys are taking this DovBear translation thing way too seriously. It was a joke, OK? The rest of my post, regarding condescension, was not. My point is that many well-argued and well-written sources of conservative thought are readily available. Anyone who proposes to tell conservatives that theyr’e wrong needs to consult some of these sources in order to understand the best available conservative arguments and refute them. (Yes, it works the other way too – that’s why I read the New Republic, NY Review, American Prospect, even the NY Times occasionally.) Unfortunately, the vast majority of liberals/leftists have not done their homework, and it shows. They seem to feel that theyr’e above facts and arguments. Hence the contempt felt by many toward them.

  16. Yes, J-
    There is much to be read on both sides but if you’d like to argue that only liberal/leftists are not well read, I’d like to counter that there are more than a few right wingers who get all they news they need from white house issued statements and right-wing-huff-and-puff radio.
    You are a lucky man that you have time enough to read all those papers, I’m jealous.

  17. Commute and bathroom time, basically. Also, I don’t waste time with TV news (except for major events or a news item where video is important). I’d also like to point out that most of the good publications are published weekly, max – many are monthly or quarterly. So it’s not necessary to invest that much time. You don’t need a great quantity of time if your’e willing to spend a minimal amount of time with quality material.

  18. J:
    If it was a joke it went over my head, I am after all a little wolf, not a big one. : )
    I am sorry I mis-understood. That frankly was my only problem with your post. As I am fairly sure the lack of reading is fairly deep on both sides. I don’t have a lot of time. That is part of the reason for my visiting blogs. I can get well thought out ideas on both sides, and then track down sources as I feel the need. (Not that I do no reading on my own.) I just don’t have as much time as I would like to right now.

  19. J,
    I read Commentary and I’m not sure what you mean. In article after article, they seem to start out with a conclusion and then follow it up with massive distortions to support that conclusion. Case in point was Podhoretz’s preposterous litany of distortions in his “WWIV” article. I think the only people who can take articles like that seriously are partisans predisposed, for instance, to believe that people like Richard Clarke are ethically suspect merely because they venture to criticize Administration policy.

  20. Sorry, Little Wolf. But your criticism of John Kerry’s campaign as lacking a message strikes me as just so much spin. Kerry’s foreign policy objectives clearly focused on repairing alliances with traditional democratic allies, and to reexamine our relations with our present “valuable allies in the war on terror” such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
    Kerry’s domestic policy objectives focused on repairing the civic infrastructure from the conservative Republican assault on public interests. Public lands, public education, public airwaves are all vulnerable to Republican pandering to narrow private interests. Even the military is increasingly dependent upon private security contractors as Bush-Cheney policies alienate our traditional democratic allies in the world.
    Further, according to the Bush campaign of 2000, any honest observer would had to have been disappointed with the course of the last four years. Bush campaigned as a “uniter not a divider,” and promising to restore honor and dignity to the office of president. Yet, despite GOP control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and conservative domination of the judiciary, there seems to be no problem that can’t be blamed on liberals, Hollywood, Democrats, trial lawyers, gays, or Massachusetts.

  21. this from the rogersimon blog: November 08, 2004
    As most have heard, the current estimates of Jewish support for Bush in the election were 25%, up from 19% in 2000. This may be a serious underestimate. The following is only preliminary (more stats are being broken down) but it comes from … of all places… BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA – perhaps the most Jewish incorporated city in the state and also the home of many of Hollywood’s supposedly left/liberal personalities (as well as numerous Iranian Jews who would tilt to Bush). Bush’s support in Beverly Hills was up 22 percentage points (more than double) from 2000. Caveat: these stats are still unofficial but they are obviously very significant.
    Here is the breakdown for Beverly Hills:
    2004 UNOFFICIAL
    BUSH 42.38% KERRY 56.98% OTHER .64%
    2000 OFFICIAL
    BUSH 20.47% GORE 76.51% OTHER 3.02%

  22. Zionista:
    I believe in this case you are missing my point. I never said that the Kerry campaign lack a message, or at least that was never my intention. My problem was with the person delivering the message. My opinion only, but I felt that Senator Kerry was either unable or unwilling to connect with me personally. I am a registered Democrat. I voted for VP Gore 4 years ago, at the time I felt he was the better candidate. Further I come from a family that is very active in the Democratic Party. Again, in my opinion all Senator Kerry seemed capable of saying was I have a plan to solve that problem, with little idea, seemingly, of what the plan was. I was also not comfortable with some of the things he seemed to be indicating were his foriegn and domestic plans in the few that he did seem to be able to communicate.
    (I felt in the few times I saw John Edwards after the convention that he did a much better job of communicating with the general public, again my opinion.) Frankly there is no attempt to spin anything on my part. I would have loved to have had a Democratic candidate that I could have voted for. I have never voted for a Republican for President before now. I may never do so again. BUT, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE JUST BECAUSE OF THE PARTY THEY REPRESENT. In previous posts I have said, and I will stand by this, a monkey put up by either party would have garnered 40% of the vote.
    Let me put in a completely different light. According to the polls out just before election day, 58% of this country felt that President Bush was taking this country in the wrong direction. Now we are going to assume that the poll is correct for the sake of this analysis. ( I don’t always think polls are accurate.) If the poll is accurate and 48% of the vote went to Senator Kerry, and 1% of the vote went to Ralph Nader. This means that 9% of the voting population voted for President Bush even though they thought that the country was going in the wrong direction. So this begs the question of WHY?
    We could simple say that 9% of the US population that voted are complete morons. While some of them are I don’t believe that 9% of the population nationally truly fall into that catagory. Another possiblility is that people were simply confused by the ballot they were using and voted for a candidate other than who they intended. (This is possible as I know in Ohio, where we still use punch cards, that people with absentee ballots were claiming they had this problem.) So we still will have a percentage of the electorate that Voted for President Bush, dispite the fact that they may have felt the country was going in the wrong direction. This means that a percentage of the population that voted for the President as opposed to the Senator voted so because despite the fact that they felt that we were going in the wrong direction, The Senator did not present enough of a ‘plan’ to believe he truly had the answers to the problems (you can count me in that number). This means that a percentage of the electorate was unhappy with the possible candidates and chose to stay the course for 4 more years because they had no clue what the other alternative was.
    If Senator Kerry had connected with just half of the 9% of that voted for the President despite believing we were going in the wrong direction, he likely would have not only one the election but may very well done so convincingly as this would have shifted 4 1/2% of the vote. And a lot more of the Electoral college.
    Having said all of this, and ramble on forever to make the point, the real key now is not to continue to cry over what happened last week. We need to start to address the issue that we need to, to begin to recover and win back seat in Congress and Gubenitorial seats in the next set of important elections in 2 years.

  23. Little Wolf,
    Fair enough. Charisma has surpassed substance in politics since the rise of electronic media.
    But Republicans pander so well to narrow private interests that the lines of communication have been thinned of any real public accountability, as the current incarnation of the FCC presides over the systematic deregulation and conglomerization of public airwaves.
    It is important to understand that most of the electorate gets most of its information from the cable and broadcast TV news business, and the cable and TV news business more often than not allows their enablers to define the issues and their opposition. So, instead of understanding the Kerry campaign, most voters were left with the Bush campaign’s (and their toadies’) explanations of the Kerry campaign. Is there a better way to understand those ridiculous “flip-flop” arm waves at the RNC and members-only Bush-Cheney rallies?

  24. The Zany Misadventures of Church and State:
    Nathan Diament, director of the Orthodox Union’s Institute of Public Affairs, located in Washington, said the GOP gains could translate into greater influence for his organization. “With Bush holding the White House and Republicans expanding their control in Congress — we will be able to come in and say, ‘Look, we are the segment of the community that supported you,’ and that would make them more interested in aspects of our agenda” (Forward).
    http://tinylink.com/?bfV4AaU0m4
    “Make no mistake – conservative Christians and ‘values voters’ won this election for George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress,” Mr. [Richard] Viguerie wrote in a memorandum sent to other prominent conservatives. “It’s crucial that the Republican leadership not forget this – as much as some will try,” he said, underlining the final clause. “Liberals, many in the media and inside the Republican Party are urging the president to ‘unite’ the country by discarding the allies that earned him another four years,” Mr. Viguerie continued. “They’re urging him to discard us conservative Catholics and Protestants, people for whom moral values are the most important issue.”
    […]
    Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family and an influential evangelical Protestant, said he had issued a warning to a “White House operative” who called yesterday morning to thank him for his help.Dr. Dobson said he told the caller that many Christians believed the country “on the verge of self-destruction” as it abandoned traditional family roles. He argued that “through prayer and the involvement of millions of evangelicals, and mainline Protestants and Catholics, God has given us a reprieve” (New York Times).
    http://tinylink.com/?wVWsfnJTbL

  25. A director of an Orthodox organization looks forward to more influence for his organization. A bloc of religious voters urges the Administration to follow the wishes of those who voted for it, rather than the wishes of those who didn’t.
    Where are the “zany misadventures”, Zionista? (I’ll grant that Dobson was a little over the top with the “verge of self destruction” line, but that’s pretty mild compared to what the left threw at Bush.)
    And are you saying that the mainstream media favored Bush???

  26. J: “And are you saying that the mainstream media favored Bush???”
    Of course. Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom, the parent company of CBS, explained the obvious preference for GOP deregulatory policies concerning public airwaves in the boardrooms of media conglomerates.
    For the month of August, the mainstream news business was filled with more than a fair share of Swift Boat Vets for Truth (sic) nonsense in “he said/he said fashion,” despite Navy records and overwhelming eye witness accounts of actual events.
    Further, if John Kerry showed up to every debate with a suspicious bulge on his back, do you think it would have attracted the laugh-it-off attitude that the bulge on Bush’s back received from the mainstream news business?
    The decision makers at the top of the broadcast and cable news business know which side their bread is buttered on. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be the decision makers at the top of the broadcast and cable news business. This is not complicated. Whether we’re talking about public lands, public education, or public airwaves, deregulation is all about the assault on public interests, and the GOP is all about deregulation.

  27. J: “A director of an Orthodox organization looks forward to more influence for his organization. A bloc of religious voters urges the Administration to follow the wishes of those who voted for it, rather than the wishes of those who didn’t.”
    Right.
    Viguerie: “…conservative Catholics and Protestants, people for whom moral values are the most important issue.”
    Dobson: “…through prayer and the involvement of millions of evangelicals, and mainline Protestants and Catholics, God has given us a reprieve.”
    And where was any mention of the “moral values” of those Orthodox Jews in the comments of Viguerie and Dobson? What are they? Chopped liver?
    Be real. Nathan Diament can look forward to bupkiss for his organization from this administration.

  28. More….
    “Leading up to the first debate, the Bush campaign very effectively defined John Kerry as a wishy-washy flip-flopper who never knew where he stood, and then they get on the stage and here’s a John Kerry who differs from the perception,” said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster…. That seems true for now, although Bush still has time to rebuild voters’ doubts about Kerry (Washington Post, Oct 15).
    And what do we mean by “effectively defined”? It means that the mainstream news business bought it, and delivered like the GOP toady machine that it is.

  29. Zionista-
    Actually, yes, as of now Orthodox Jews might as well be chopped liver, considering that all Jews make up only 2% of the country, and Orthodox Jews about 10% of that. The omission of Orthodox Jews from the statements you quoted say nothing about the speakers’ opinions of Jews or Orthodoxy.
    Somehow, you forgot to try to explain, or explain away, such events as CBS’s forged memos (assuming, of course, your’e not going to deny they were forged) and 60 Minutes’ planned Sunday night surprise regarding the missing Iraqi weapons. And why did most of the mainstream media endorse Kerry if theyr’e in the Republicans’ pocket?
    And let’s not forget this masterpiece-
    “Whether we’re talking about public lands, public education, or public airwaves, deregulation is all about the assault on public interests.
    Really. No arguments about the efficient use of lands or trying to improve the education system through competition? Just an assault on public interests?
    Shocking as it may seem, when a candidate is for the war and against it, in favor of Israel’s fence and against it, in favor of a vigorous defense but with the requirement of a “global test” (which phrase itself ended up having several definitions), we don’t need TV news, or any other form of media, or the Bush campaign, to conclude that such candidate is in fact a wishy-washy flip-flopper.

  30. Little Wolf,
    Yes, but I did have a clear idea where Bush stood and I did not like it.
    I talk to and read columns written by Jewish Republicans who believe that the Christian right is our friend because they support Israel. Those are the people I was referring to. Often the Christian right is more extreme than even Sharon.

  31. Susan:
    I will agree with that and I suspect that I just misunderstood your point before. I will also agree that I did not care for everything that President Bush stood for, but as I said before, I just was not comfortable with what Senator Kerry was hoping to accomplish at all.
    Zionista:
    Your post have got to be the first time I have ever heard the ‘traditional’ media that is generally considered to be quite ‘liberal’ in this country to be refered to a being in the pocket of the Republicans. The ‘Swift Boat’ ads prove nothing, they were ads that were paid for by the 527 that was backing them. Just like Moveon.Org and other from the Democratic side. Frankly I think several of the Democratic 527’s blew their money to early before the campaign really go going and didn’t have as much money as later on. Those ads by the was are just like any other ad, it is up to the viewer to decide whether the information in the ad is sensible or not.
    I don’t suppose you buy every single product you see advertised on the TV, why would you buy everything that an obviously biased commercial from one side or the other says. The only thing those ads did was motivate the politcal proponents of the side from which they were. The rest of us were repulsed by them. I, personally, found those ads to be disgusting. And I mean the 527’s in general not just the ‘Swift Boat’ ads.
    The whole process was corrupted and brought to a boiling point by the 527 stupidity. (Some of the ads were so obviously stupid that they were actually funny.)
    Additionally I don’t really think that Charisma, as said, is really the issue. It is a part of the process, but not entirely. Again as I have said before, I don’t feel that Senator Kerry was very effective at making his cases, with the exception of the debates which he was clearly better at ‘dancing’ around than the President. He seemed to be either unwilling or unable to rise out of the noise to make himself understood. Frankly I feel that VP Gore had much of the same problem in 2000.
    What we as Democrats need to do is find someone who is a little more centrist that our last 2 candidates or can at least appeal that way. And who is a good communicator, and is good at connecting with the general population. President Bush is okay at it, but President Clinton was very skilled at it. This is partially Charisma, but it is much more. It is look, style of speach, body movement. And frankly, dispite it not affecting me at all, a wife that does not come off as a snobbish nut case. Teresa was not the most helpful political spouse I have ever seen. She made Hillary look positively lovable. And from that comment you can tell, which I believe I have posted before, the answer is not Hillary in 2008. I think the monkey from my previous posts would beat Hillary and I am not sure she would garner the 40% of the electorate to not be embarassed in 4 years.

  32. Here’s hoping Democrats won’t take Little Wolf’s advice. Instead, why not move even further to the left? And why not nominate Hillary? All your friends love her, you don’t know anyone who doesn’t, so she’s guaranteed to win. And above all, be sure to publicly rant about how ignorant, stupid and evil red state voters are, and how ashamed of and contemptuous toward America you are, not only in the next few weeks, but over the next four years.
    No surrender!

  33. there is nothing positive bout these thick americans votin 4 terrorist Bush. he will crap all over the jews sooner or later… probably a good thing

  34. Ah, left-wing anti-semitism. Take note, left-wing Jews – if you think a Jewish/ right-wing Christian alliance is risky, you might want to take another look at your own political pals.

  35. Nic:
    That is an interesting attitude. Truthfully the chance are that any President, regardless of party, if given sufficient time in the position is likely to do something the Jewish community will consider a major problem.
    By the way I was just reading else where that President Bush says the death of ‘President’ Arafat will clear the way for the implementation for the two-state solution that he has been envisioning. All hail the passing of the evil pedofile.

  36. Little Wolf,
    The Swift Boat Vet ads ran mainly in battleground states, but the national TV news business humped the story for a month, and again, covering in “he said/he said” fashion with no adequate treatment of the factual contradictions to their claims by Pentagon/Navy records and eyewitness accounts of the events.
    J,
    Show me a cable or broadcast news channel that endorsed Kerry. Remember, kasha and varnishkas. If you are talking about newspaper endorsements, that’s not necessarily a part of the TV news business (though there is an unhealthy degree of vertical media conglomeration as well), and is not what I’m talking about here. Again, most Americans get their information from cable and broadcast TV news, not print.
    Don’t take my word for it, folks….
    From a “Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal,” [CBS parent company, Viacom CEO Sumner] Redstone told an audience of CEOs in Hong Kong in late September, “because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on.”
    http://tinylink.com/?Swyslc7jll

  37. J: “…the requirement of a ‘global test’….”
    This is a great example of how the conservative echo chamber effect dominates the TV news business. The way J heard it and tells it, Kerry’s “global test” is some sort of prerequisite to implementing foreign policy decisions. But the way John Kerry actually used the phrase in the debate was in terms of credibility after the fact. Check it out….
    “No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded — and nor would I — the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim [Lehrer, the moderator during the debate], you’ve got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”
    Considering the damage to the credibility of American intelligence regarding Iraqi WMD and alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida, Kerry raised a very good point that went lost in the decontextualized repetition of those two little words.

  38. Zionista- I agree with you on the whole “global test” fiasco. That one phrase snowballed so far out of proportion that it alone may have been enough to tilt the election in Bush’s favor.
    As for the swift boat crap – that was a hot news story that the press rode until it ran out of steam. That was media greed and nothing else.
    It is not the job of news media to present us with partisan OPINIONS on who is right/wrong good/bad for the country- but rather to present the facts, in context, and with explanation if possibles for viewers to draw their own opinions. TV news (and cable) seemed very slanted one way or another from station to station this year even more so than usual- one more reason reason to turn off the idiot box.
    P.S. Kasha and varnishkas?
    Delicious, and yet you confuse me….

  39. Shifra: “TV news (and cable) seemed very slanted one way or another from station to station this year even more so than usual”
    Which station appeared slanted toward Kerry-Edwards? And I do mean slanted, as opposed to presenting facts and details that were not necessarily in the incumbent administration’s favor.
    (Cont’d): “P.S. Kasha and varnishkas?
    Delicious, and yet you confuse me….”
    A variation on the “apples and oranges” thing. There’s an old expression, “don’t mix your kasha with your varnishkas,” or as gentiles like the Poles (and also perhaps Jews of other regions) apparently liked to do.

  40. Zionista:
    I am not trying to defend the ‘National Media’ in any way. But as Shifra pointed out, the New should report the news. Unfortunately in this day and age that is no longer what is being done. Much of the news is not only slanted in it’s reporting, but they tend to make the news in to commentary. They perhaps should have tried to do more to dispel the lies and distortions of the 527 going in both directions. The Swift Boats may have been the most obvious, but that was part of the problem. The Swift Boat ads were so clearly distortions of reality that perhaps they shouldn’t have need any additional commentary.
    The President and his campaign people used the same strategy to attack John McCann in 2000.
    The sad thing that even if all of the news station had dispelled the lies in the Swift Boat ads, about 40% of the population still would have accepted it as being true just because it was about the Democratic candidate.

  41. Little Wolf: “The sad thing that even if all of the news station had dispelled the lies in the Swift Boat ads, about 40% of the population still would have accepted it as being true just because it was about the Democratic candidate.”
    But they didn’t, and that’s my point. And why should they, anyway? It’s not in the interest of the TV news business to simply report the news….
    Shifra: “As for the swift boat crap – that was a hot news story that the press rode until it ran out of steam. That was media greed and nothing else.”
    Yes indeed. And that greed is precisely what drives CEOs like Redstone, and the boardrooms and shareholders of other parent companies of cable and network channels, to throw their support behind Republican efforts to overthrow regulatory standards. Restraint is a nuisance. Public trust is not profitable. The TV news business is more profitable the less accountable it is to public interest. As the FCC is increasingly defanged, so goes EPA, NEA, and other government agencies that are supposed to put the public interest ahead of narrow private interests.

  42. As a Jew, I often feel squeezed by anti-Semitism on the left and anti-Semitism on the right. However, I still find mainstream liberalism the most comfortable home.
    I distinguish between John Kerry and the Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky left.

  43. I should add to my reply to Susan Stein’s comment that I agree with the observation of a squeeze between between right and left in terms of antisemitism. For every Chomsky there’s a Pat Buchanan. However, it blows the mind most bitterly that our Bushevik landesmen characterize the entire liberal end of the political spectrum as Chomskyites, while having no apparent problem apologizing for the Buchanan-Norquist-Rohrbacher wing on the conservative end.

  44. What if, Zionista, some of us are well aware of the context of the “global test” remark and STILL think it was inappropriate and betrayed Kerry’s true feelings about defense? It’s true that Kerry didn’t actually say that we have to ask permission to defend ourselves (not during the debate, anyway, but he came pretty close on other occasions), and it’s true that some people exxagerated the meaning of “global test”. Nevertheless, what Kerry actually said is highly problematic. The notion that the USA has to “prove to the world” that its actions are legitimate should frighten anyone concerned with defense. As any lawyer, or anyone who understands argumentation and debate, will tell you, burden of proof is a very important issue, one that has a great influence on the outcome of a conflict. The idea that the USA can’t act without proving legitimacy, if taken seriously, would severely restrict our freedom to act. (Less problematic would have been a statement to the effect that the USA’s actions must BE legitimate, but of course that would have been pointless for Kerry, since Bush has claimed all along that his actions are legitimate, whether or not the Europeans agree.) Aside from this, the very phrasing of “global test” implies that foreign powers get a say in how the USA chooses to defend itself; even if that was not what Kerry meant, an aspiring leader must have the sense to choose the appropriate terminology. Further, Kerry’s debate statement was interpreted in light of his previous statements, which made him look worse, but is it unreasonable to do so?
    On the subject of Michael Moore, a brief rant. I’d love to make a movie wherein the opening shot is a picture of Moore leering. The next shot would be of small children. The third would be a reporter talking about pedophilia. Each of the three shots would be true and factual, but the juxtaposition – well, that would serve him right, wouldn’t it? Such is the Moore method of truth-telling. While I would not compare Moore to liberals in general, I have to say I was disgusted with the tepid response of most liberals to Moore. Liberals should have been the first to denounce him, but most were MIA. (Was it the election, or was it the typical liberal weakness in standing up to the Left?) Either way, not a good showing for the liberals. Too bad. I’d like to think that liberals, centrists and conservatives make up a “Coalition of the Sane”, but the weak liberal reaction to Moore’s insane conspiracy theories makes me wonder.

  45. Ok J here’s a parallel for ya:
    Michael Moore (who cannot stop repeating how he is not affiliated with the Dems) makes a movie slamming Bush and implying all sorts of things which may be outright lies, and charges people to see it.
    VS
    The swiftboat guys who are confirmed Republicans (with ties to the Bush campaign?) make some commercials aired on national television slamming Kerry and implying all sorts of things which may be outright lies.
    I didn’t see W or his campaign stand out against those commercials, they just kind of ignored it and let the media work their greedy magic.
    Same with Moore’s film and the Democrats.
    I’d love to see the day when campaigns are so honest that not only do opponents NOT LIE about each other’s records but actually stand up when others speak ill of them…
    NOT GONNA HAPPEN….
    I’d join a coallition of the sane if there was one.

  46. Shifra-
    I just love how you do that. It’s all in those small details.
    Moore repeats that he’s not affiliated with the Democrats. In a legal sense, likely not, but ideologically? Clearly yes. For our purposes, what’s the difference? So the swiftboat guys are confirmed Republicans. So what? It’s very common among military people who don’t call other soldiers war criminals at the conclusion of their service.
    “(with ties to the Bush campaign?) ”
    Now, some people might not notice that. But those of us who do see it as a reflection of your fundamental dishonesty. Your’e clearly not coming out and saying they had such ties, because you have no evidence, so your’e trying to slip in the suspicion without anything to back you up. How about if I said “Michael Moore (possible pedophile?)”. Since I used a question mark, and no one has proved Moore is NOT a pedophile, my statement is technically correct, like yours, but also groossly dishonest, like yours.
    You say each implied things which may be outright lies. Sad if you can’t tell the difference between a he-said she-said dispute and full blown conspiracy theories.

  47. J, I think you misunderstood me.
    I put it with a question mark and in parenthesis because I had heard it was true that there were some ties there but I did not have it confirmed by a credible source so I didn’t want to present it as fact but as a possibility.
    The same goes for my statement of Moore’s constant repetition of his not being a democrat- obviously he is anti bush and pro Kerry, he’s not fooling anyone.
    Ok now on to what you said: I am confused-
    “It’s very common among military people who don’t call other soldiers war criminals at the conclusion of their service.”
    What does that mean?
    You mean that lots of former soldiers are republicans? Or that lots of soliders call their ex-platoonmates war criminals? Hopefully there is another explanation because neither of those make sense to me…
    Also, do you really think the swiftboat guys are telling the TRUTH?
    Anyway I think it kind of evens out:
    Conspiracy theory + movie people have to choose and pay to see = Condemning allegations + Mainstream TV time

  48. Shifra-
    “Ok now on to what you said: I am confused-
    “It’s very common among military people who don’t call other soldiers war criminals at the conclusion of their service.”
    I’m saying that being a Republican is very common among military people, not some unusual and telling affiliation. The rest of my sentence was a gratuitous swipe at Kerry.
    “Also, do you really think the swiftboat guys are telling the TRUTH?”
    Having looked at as many sides of this argument as I could, I still can’t tell who is telling the truth. This applies to the wartime allegations, of course; Kerry’s remarks about the Vietnam War and our soldiers following his service is a matter of public record. If I had been in charge of a 527, I would have focused only on this – factually unimpeachable and undisputed, and damning as hell.
    “Conspiracy theory + movie people have to choose and pay to see = Condemning allegations + Mainstream TV time”
    I get a headache just thinking about this. But did you count the people who saw the movie and felt ripped off? Also, what about the reviews and news stories that appeared on free TV and -GASP!- forced us to look upon the unholy, unseemly and unsightly image of he-who-could-single-handedly-keep-Haagen-Dasz-in-business?
    Here’s something we might agree on – I propose that McCain and Feingold be tied to a chair and forced to watch EVERY SINGLE 527 production consecutively. That’ll teach ’em!

  49. J: ” ‘(with ties to the Bush campaign?)’….
    Now, some people might not notice that. But those of us who do see it as a reflection of your fundamental dishonesty. Your’e clearly not coming out and saying they had such ties, because you have no evidence”
    Benjamin Ginsberg resigned his position as cousel for the Bush-Cheney reelction committee after it became known that he was also legal advisor for the Swift Boat Vets for Truth (sic):
    http://tinylink.com/?zMeJailxJY

  50. J: “So the swiftboat guys are confirmed Republicans. So what? It’s very common among military people who don’t call other soldiers war criminals at the conclusion of their service.”
    Another great example of the conservative echo chamber. J heard it and tells it as if John Kerry himself leveled accusations at veterans. John Kerry actually related the testimonials of the Winter Soldier Campaign before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as he was summoned there to do.
    Keep’em comin’, J!

  51. This is what happens when someone gets hold of a DNC talking points paper but knows little else.
    “Benjamin Ginsberg resigned his position as cousel for the Bush-Cheney reelction committee after it became known that he was also legal advisor for the Swift Boat Vets for Truth (sic): ”
    So? Are you saying that because their legal adviser was connected to Bush-Cheney, the members of the group were too?
    “John Kerry actually related the testimonials of the Winter Soldier Campaign before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as he was summoned there to do. ”
    And this constitutes no endorsement of the Winter Soldier findings? Kerry was just a conduit, nothing more? The way you tell it, sounds like ANYONE could have been “summoned” to do what Kerry did. What a coincidence that it was Kerry.
    If Kerry had a problem with the testimony he gave in 1971, he could have refused to give it. He could have quit Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He could have modified the testimony with his own remarks (he did in fact make his own remarks regarding other issues) at the time, or later on. He chose to go ahead anyway, and therefore bears the responsibility for what he said.
    I seem to recall that you’ve ignored the forged Bush papers and CBS’ attempted Sunday surprise re missing Iraqi weapons in your little thesis about the TV stations tilting Republican. I can’t wait to hear your explanation, but I’ll give you a few minutes to consult your talking points.

  52. Can I ask a question? Why are we debating the virtue of liars on the left and liars on the right? Michael Moore has made a fortune by distorting reality to fit what ever his view of reality is. And the Swift Boat ads were just as obviously not entirely true. There has been several reports that people who were in the ads denouncing Senator Kerry had, in the past, supported him and had spoken highly of him.
    Lets look at the future, not last week. All this discussion about it accomplishes nothing. Time to move on and figure out what to do next.
    So on that note: Is anyone else horrified by the idea of Howard Dean becoming Chairman of the Democratic Party. Can we really do anything else to self distruct now for the next 4 years.

  53. Little Wolf: “There has been several reports that people who were in the ads denouncing Senator Kerry had, in the past, supported him and had spoken highly of him. ”
    Nu? So, what do we call that? Flip-flopping, or “steady leadership”?

  54. J: “I seem to recall that you’ve ignored the forged Bush papers and CBS’ attempted Sunday surprise re missing Iraqi weapons in your little thesis about the TV stations tilting Republican.”
    Yet another great example of the conservative echo chamber’s effect on the national discourse. How convenient that one single thread could unravel the entire thesis of the story, namely President Bush’s avoidance of his commitment to serve. Exactly what, in the mountain of records released by the Bush campaign, ever satisfied the question of whether or not young George turned up where he was supposed to be? We don’t know. We stopped talking about it and had to study Dan Rather. Much the way we all had to stop discussing the way the Bush administration missed the intelligence on al Qaida’s intention to attack American targets and turn our attention to Richard Clarke’s personality.
    So much for Bush-Cheney’s era of responsibility and accountability….

  55. Another great example of the conservative echo chamber, currently on the scene, but yet to be fully explored here, is the myth of Bush’s “moral mandate.” Further, this one has implications for Jews since most of us don’t meet the requisite acceptance of a certain carpenter as the long anticipated moshiach. Like Gil Scott-Heron once said, “All I have to say is, ‘mandate’ my ass.” Check it out…
    “The entire ‘moral values’ story of the 2004 election has been greatly exaggerated by the corporate media. Not so coincidentally, it fits exactly with what the Republicans would like everyone to believe. They’d like the Democrats to erupt into a civil war and would be thrilled to see the Democrats act on an impulse to now move to the right. And certainly the Republicans would like to perpetuate the image of Karl Rove as ‘boy genius,’ though Bush won reelection by the smallest margin of any incumbent since Woodrow Wilson and of any wartime president in history.”
    http://tinylink.com/?KxIPtNWTHk
    Frank Rich (NYT): “But it’s not only the G.O.P.’s fealty to its financial backers that is predictive of how little cultural bang the ‘values’ voters will get for their Bush-Cheney votes. At 78 percent, the nonvalues voters have far more votes than they do, and both parties will cater to that overwhelming majority’s blue tastes first and last. Their mandate is clear: The same poll that clocked “moral values” partisans at 22 percent of the electorate found that nearly three times as many Americans approve of some form of legal status for gay couples, whether civil unions (35 percent) or marriage (27 percent). Do the math and you’ll find that the poll also shows that for all the G.O.P.’s efforts to court Jews, the total number of Jewish Republican voters in 2004, while up from 2000, was still some 200,000 less than the number of gay Republican voters.”
    http://tinylink.com/?9j9lvKJPrc
    BJ3: “Don’t equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ.”
    http://www.bju.edu/letter

  56. More from the Frank Rich piece:
    http://tinylink.com/?9j9lvKJPrc
    Thomas Frank, the author of ‘What’s the Matter With Kansas?,’ …writes, ‘Values always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won.’ Under this perennial ‘trick,’ as he calls it, Republican politicians promise to stop abortion and force the culture industry ‘to clean up its act’ – until the votes are counted. Then they return to their higher priorities, like cutting capital gains and estate taxes. Mr. Murdoch and his fellow cultural barons – from Sumner Redstone, the Bush-endorsing C.E.O. of Viacom, to Richard Parsons, the Republican C.E.O. of Time Warner, to Jeffrey Immelt, the Bush-contributing C.E.O. of G.E. (NBC Universal) – are about to be rewarded not just with more tax breaks but also with deregulatory goodies increasing their power to market salacious entertainment. It’s they, not Susan Sarandon and Bruce Springsteen, who actually set the cultural agenda Gary Bauer and company say they despise.”
    Go figure…. What the Busheviks and their conservative echo chamber have effectively done is stand the idea of patriotism on its ear, coloring the idea of public interest in adversarial terms of a “Liberal Elite” and narrow private interests in vague terms of “moral values.” The assault on public lands, public education, public airwaves is effectively complete if Democrats buy into the myth that they need to be more like Republicans in their intolerance of all things non-fundamentalist Christian, ala Ralph Reed, James Dobson and Bob Jones III.

  57. Yesss. What the Democrats need are more Zionistas. Nothing to worry about, Dems. A few more Frank Rich columns, and he’ll figure out that you actually won the election. Why worry about the steady erosion of your numbers in the Senate and House? You just keep doing what your’e doing (and I’ll keep celebrating after every election day).
    How do you tell propaganda from an honest discussion? Not always an easy question, but easy here. Let me point out that Zionista STILL hasn’t addressed how the forged memos and Sunday Iraq weapons surprise affect her thesis regarding TV media’s Republican tilt. Instead, we get the following:
    “Yet another great example of the conservative echo chamber’s effect on the national discourse. How convenient that one single thread could unravel the entire thesis of the story, namely President Bush’s avoidance of his commitment to serve. Exactly what, in the mountain of records released by the Bush campaign, ever satisfied the question of whether or not young George turned up where he was supposed to be? We don’t know. We stopped talking about it and had to study Dan Rather. Much the way we all had to stop discussing the way the Bush administration missed the intelligence on al Qaida’s intention to attack American targets and turn our attention to Richard Clarke’s personality.”
    This is called CHANGING THE SUBJECT. Remember, the subject was TV media tilt.
    So typical. Stop reading off the sheet and actually engage the discussion, Zionista.
    Let’s not forget this lil’ beauty:
    “Little Wolf: “There has been several reports that people who were in the ads denouncing Senator Kerry had, in the past, supported him and had spoken highly of him. ”
    Nu? So, what do we call that? Flip-flopping, or “steady leadership”?”
    Ooooh. I guess that explains why I didn’t vote for any of the people in the ads, but rather for W.
    “Like Gil Scott-Heron once said, “All I have to say is, ‘mandate’ my ass.”
    Oh, so that’s what it means. I thought it was a new gay sexual practice.
    I’ll also note that you have not presented either a defense or apology for trying to fool the readers here into thinking that Kerry did not slander his fellow soldiers in 1971. You keep on flinging more blather into the mix in the hopes of avoiding addressing the things you posted earlier (although if your’e resorting to Frank Rich, you must be getting close to the bottom of the barrel). For any liberals following this thread, it must be embarrassing.

  58. J: “Remember, the subject was TV media tilt.”
    In fact the subject is American Jewish voters’ rejection of the Bush-Cheney campaign. I only brought up the TV news business in response to a comment to the effect that the Kerry campaign lacked a communicable message. Meanwhile, your sustained and consistent dependence on conservative echo chamber talking points does more to support my argument than take anything away from it.
    Well, that and fat-guy jokes and gay sexual references, anyway. But at least no one will accuse you of being part of the liberal pinhead intellectual elite. You and your Bushevik friends can be real proud of that.

  59. One more post from Zionista, and still no actual arguments made. Did you ever consider that the conservative “echo chamber” (a phrase I think you’ve about beaten to death by now) may exist because there are too few liberals who can answer conservative arguments?
    ” I only brought up the TV news business in response to a comment to the effect that the Kerry campaign lacked a communicable message.”
    So? Does that mean you don’t have to defend your comments?
    “Meanwhile, your sustained and consistent dependence on conservative echo chamber talking points does more to support my argument than take anything away from it.”
    Aside from not showing us how that is, your main problem is that your’e trying to steal my line re talking points and turn it on me. A word of advice – that’s pretty much like saying “whatever you say goes back to you” in an adult conversation. Not clever.
    “But at least no one will accuse you of being part of the liberal pinhead intellectual elite. You and your Bushevik friends can be real proud of that.”
    Ahhh, the essence of the argument. “Your’e wrong because – Nyahhhh!” Yes, I am proud of that. (Sorry you didn’t like my jokes. I figured, if I’m dealing with someone who finds “Bushevik” clever, why waste my best material.)
    Anyone in the house who actually knows how to go off-script and make an argument?

  60. Good luck with that….
    http://tinylink.com/?3cVG3iOFiq
    WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 – Arthur Finkelstein, a Republican consultant known for hard-edged campaigns that helped conservatives in the United States and Israel, has said in an interview published in Israel that President Bush’s campaign strategy to court evangelical Christians had divided the country as never before, to the possible detriment of the Republican Party.
    “From now on, anyone who belongs to the Republican Party will automatically find himself in the same group as the opponents of abortion, and anyone who supports abortion will automatically be labeled a Democrat,” Mr. Finkelstein told Maariv, a daily, in an interview published on Friday. “The political center has disappeared, and the Republican Party has become the party of the Christian right more so than in any other period in modern history….”
    “Bush courted the evangelical vote,” he said, “and turned these elections, in fact, into a referendum on the religious and cultural nature of America. This is my problem.”

  61. J:
    I find it interesting that you have repeatedly accused Zionista of dragging out ‘Talking Points’, then you do the same thing, and not even in relation to what I was talking about. The comment that I was making was that the Swift Boat ads had several people that had previously supported Senator Kerry, who were now not supporting him and I questioned that fact that they had now changed thier stories. Your response was that Senator Kerry was a ‘flip-flopper.’ Zionista, on the other hand, is trying to convince me that my statement of opinion is wrong by quoting all sorts articles from around the country about Senator Kerry.
    Frankly I don’t think either of you is doing anything but sticking up for ‘your side’ with out trying to understand anything you don’t agree with. I understand where both of you are coming from. Time to put this election behind us, all this rediculous repetition of things from 2 weeks ago is getting us know where. Time to decide what the future holds, we know the past whether we are happy with the electoral outcome or not.

  62. Little Wolf-
    Go back and review the thread again (if you can stand it!). You’ll notice that rather than “dragging out talking points”, I refuted Zionista’s assertions, in some cases by bringing in new facts. The problem I have with Zionista is that instead of defending her points, she continually changes the subject by throwing in new items. (My responses were keyed to her statements, whether or not you brought the point up.) I don’t see the benefit of having someone troll the Internet for articles congenial to their point of view – lots of weblogs provide that service. What may be useful is to have a discussion with someone who (a) actually understands their own point of view, (b) is capable of defending said point of view, and (c) understands the difference between spewing propaganda and making an argument.
    “The comment that I was making was that the Swift Boat ads had several people that had previously supported Senator Kerry, who were now not supporting him and I questioned that fact that they had now changed thier stories. Your response was that Senator Kerry was a ‘flip-flopper.'”
    No, it was Zionista who brought up the “flip-flopper” idea. My response was “Ooooh. I guess that explains why I didn’t vote for any of the people in the ads, but rather for W.” You brought up the switch in support to impeach the credibility of some of the swift boaters, but Zionista somehow thought that this was “Flip-flopping”. Yes, but the swift boaters aren’t George Bush, and the flip-flopping charge is relevant to the CANDIDATES.
    “Frankly I don’t think either of you is doing anything but sticking up for ‘your side’ with out trying to understand anything you don’t agree with. I understand where both of you are coming from. ”
    I think this was your pre-arranged position from before this thread existed. Being that your’e somewhat in the middle of the two sides, it’s very tempting to think this way when people of the opposing sides argue. The temptation should be resisted, however. Read through my comments and you’ll see that I understand very well what I don’t agree with. Just remember how you feel when someone who knows nothing about the Middle East discusses it and starts talking about “both sides”, acting as if he’s “above it all” by equalizing Israel and the Arabs, and acting as if he’s the adult arbitrating a silly squabble between two children. Gets you angry, doesn’t it?
    “Time to put this election behind us, all this rediculous repetition of things from 2 weeks ago is getting us know where.”
    Is anything really behind us? Surely we can learn lessons from what happened before. One of the lessons I learned is that the arrogant attitude of the Left tends to cover up a shocking ignorance of the issues; in fact, these so-called “intellectuals” are so convinced of their moral superiority that they often don’t even understand why they need to defend their positions. The Democrats are so entangled in and dominated by these characters that it will take years of defeat before they can do what it takes to become competitive with the Republicans again.

  63. Little Wolf: “Frankly I don’t think either of you is doing anything but sticking up for ‘your side’ with out trying to understand anything you don’t agree with. I understand where both of you are coming from.”
    None of this is all that hard to understand, really. The differences are quite fundamental, and contrast precisely over policy directions, now and in the future. I don’t pretend that I can move the opinion of a true believer like J one way or another. Rather J’s comments are valuable illustrations of how the party in power and its fellow travelers deliberately deconstruct factual events and statements to effectively resist challenges from opposition perspectives. Check it out…
    “No arguments about the efficient use of lands or trying to improve the education system through competition? Just an assault on public interests?” (J – 11/10/04 08:51am).
    Here, for example, we are supposed to believe that the systematic deregulation of public accountability over the private use of public lands amounts to “efficient use.” Similarly, and this is the point at which you and I started our particular discussion, while communications deregulation has brought about more choices in broadcast and cable channels, the operations licenses are owned by fewer companies, and this has been made possible by the regulatory agency that had been established for the purpose of public accountability. The CEO’s of these companies surely would cut out their own tongues before they would voluntarily submit to a rollback of such deregulations. And they would never be so naive as to present arguments by those who advocate such dereg rollbacks in a clear and convincing manner on their news channels or in their editorial policies.

  64. J:
    My “pre-arranged position from before this thread existed” has been consistent. I voted for Bush because I felt more comfortable with him in office than his opponent for a number of reasons, some of whichi I have listed on this thread. Everyone enters a thread with a “pre-arranged position”, otherwise they would not be posting as they would not have an opinion on the subject at had. My point from the begining has been that I didn’t feel that Senator Kerry was effective at communicating with the political center and this is what ultimately cost him the election. (After all 3.5 Milliion votes isn’t a substantial margin that it couldn’t be over come.)
    Zionista:
    The point I was trying to make is I don’t feel either you or J are capable of reaching any kind of middle ground on the last election.
    To both:
    Yes I think we need to keep the last election in mind, as the old saying goes “He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it.” That having been said, it is time to look to the future. Rehashing the previous election for the next 4 years will do nothing but increase the bitterness and divide in this country. We need to look to the future. 3 1/2 years from now we will be back where we were in January, and it will be a blank slate for both parties, time to start debating the next election. (How about Hillary vs Arnold?) (Anyone for amending the Constitution so that Arnold can run for President?) The next 4 years should be very interesting. The last election is dead and the autopsy has been done, the ‘official’ reports aren’t out, but I think that continuing to beat a dead horse is sort of non-sensical.

  65. What “middle gound,” Little Wolf? The circumstances and the issues that divide us haven’t gone away just because we voted. Narrow private interests will sustain their deregulatory assault on the broader public interest, and our trips around the drain will get faster and shorter while the conservative echo chamber continues to play victim of their delusionary “liberal elite.” Can’t stand the coarsening of American culture by mainstream corporate media? Let’s make their tax cut permanent and rig the playing field to their advantage.

  66. This whole thread is becoming an “echo chamber.”
    People who don’t like where this administration is headed (self included) need to stop mourning and start planning.
    For once I agree with J (don’t let it go to your head baby!)- if the democrats want a chance to be competitive in the next election (or any election) they need to get organized. This election was lost because of the democrats inability to give enough Americans something to hold on to and to believe in.
    Wolfie: “Hillary VS Arnold” – that’s my nightmare!!! But what a movie it would make! We should start writing that screenplay now for screening before the next election.

  67. Shifra:
    Thank you for your support. I have been making the same comment about moving forward on this thread for about a week now.
    I also have to say that the concept of Hillary Vs Arnold may be enough to make me leave the country. Of course that is assuming that we are, as a nation, dumb enough to alter the Constitution to allow Arnold to run.
    Having said that, and looking toward the future, it sound like the early ‘favorite’ is the moderate Democratic Governor of Virginia, can’t remember his name at the moment. I think what scares most is the idea of Howard Dean, or Gore’s campaign manager, again a name that escapes me, taking over as Chairman of the Democratic Party. Honestly, could we do anything more to destroy the party than appoint either Dr. Dean, who couldn’t control himself long enough to get through 2 primaries with out imploding completely. Or the campaign manager for VP Gore, who I am not sure is any better. We need some one who has an idea how to present the party in a ‘new’ light.
    The concept I have in mind is something similar to what the Republicans did in Clinton’s first-term mid-term elections with the ‘Contract with America.’ A unified national agenda aimed at defeating weak or potentially weak Republican House and Senate members. It would also be used to attack any potential open Govenorships (Such as Ohio).
    Look at what the stategy has done for the Republicans. We also need to get away from giving the impression we are ‘talking down to middle America.’ This may be a lot harder, because a number of our candidates talk like that naturally.

  68. Little Wolf: “We also need to get away from giving the impression we are ‘talking down to middle America.’ This may be a lot harder, because a number of our candidates talk like that naturally.”
    Exactly how do Democrats talk down to middle America? Aren’t Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota “middle America”? Do Democrats talk any worse than the way Republicans and other conservatives like Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter essentially accuse liberals of treason? In the third debate, President Bush even went so far as to say John Kerry was unfit to lead for being “a Massachusetts liberal.”
    I live in a part of middle America that is sending a Democrat to our only open Senate seat. Meanwhile, it’s been Republicans and other conservative blowhards insisting that we have no “moral center,” and that the values of me, my family, and my neighbors are somehow less genuine than theirs. But deep in the heart of Scarborough Country, it’s the Democrats and other liberals who “give the impression” of talking down to middle America. Go figure. By the standard set in this discussion, Democrats and other liberals apparently need to live by the courage of someone else’s convictions. Sorry, but that smells like something other than “middle ground.”

  69. Shifra: “People who don’t like where this administration is headed (self included) need to stop mourning and start planning. ”
    Nu? So let’s hear some ideas. In an hour, I’m at a meeting in our town’s library. Tomorrow, I’ll be at a meeting of the Township Democratic Party as a precinct committeeman. Believe me, we all know what we stand for, and we have done a pretty good job of planning and organizing in one of the redder counties of an overall blue state. Enough to send our electors to Kerry, and send a Democrat to our only open Senate seat.
    So what are you doing this week to move ahead?

  70. That’s it! No surrender! It’s time the Democrats moved even farther to the left. Make that McGovern guy seem like William F. Buckley. Just a few tweaks necessary – organize better, target weak Republican seats, get out the vote. No fundamental changes necessary.
    I might as well reserve the hall now for my post-election party for each of the next twenty elections.

  71. Zionista:
    You seem to think I am trying to attack the Democratic Party is some way. Look, the image that the Democratic Party has in much of ‘Middle America’, that not being a state but a state of mind. The rural people, the Democratic party often comes off as being a bunch of intellectuals. I don’t think being an intellectual is such a bad thing, but lets look at something real for a moment. Both John Kerry and George W. Bush went to the same school. When you listen to them though who would you say is the blue blood and who the ‘good ole boy.’
    Does this mean that the Democrats need to nominate a ‘good ole boy’? NO. But lets compare the last two Democratic Candidates with the last Democratic President. Let us ignore for a moment the ‘Character Issues’ of President Clinton. What was one of the big differences between President Clinton and both VP Gore and Senator Kerry. That is actually very easy. President Clinton had the capability to connect with people on a one-to-one basis even when speaking in front of a big crowd. VP Gore and Senator Kerry came off as very stiff and uncomfortable. President Bush also comes off as very natural and able to connect with the public. What we need to find is some one who can communicate on a human basis, who can explain a complex issue with out sounding like he is giving a lecture in advanced nuclear physics.
    I’ve said it before, I don’t feel (and this is my opinion) that Senator Kerry was able to communicate with the majority of the people. I know a number of people who dislike President Bush, and for the right candidate would have likely voted for the Democratic candidate, but Senator Kerry was unable to reach them. (I happen, as I have said before, to be one of them.)
    As for advise on where we need to go from here read my last post, I gave a fairly complete analysis of what we need to do as a party.
    J:
    I hope the Democratic Party doesn’t move any further to the left. As for the party reservations, I hope you are not talking Presidential elections, I don’t know how old you are but that would make you well over 80, you’d be partying in a nursing home most likely. : )

  72. Little Wolf: “What was one of the big differences between President Clinton and both VP Gore and Senator Kerry. That is actually very easy. President Clinton had the capability to connect with people on a one-to-one basis even when speaking in front of a big crowd.”
    Because turnout was very high on both sides this time, John Kerry actually attracted more voters in this election than Clinton or Gore (or Ronald Reagan) did in theirs. We must factor in these circumstances to get at a larger truer meaning of it. Along with examining what the Democrats and the Kerry campaign did wrong, we also have to examine what the Republicans and the Bush campaign did right, and avoid the impulse to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I agree up to the point of your assertion that the Democratic Party does need to improve their ability to communicate their message. But the message itself is important, because if they become more Republican they will lose both their core (which remains strong, if you accept the raw data), as well as any moderate swing voters who will in turn lose any reason to vote for a “nuveau GOP” Democrat than an authentic Republican.
    Bush-Cheney proved themselves very talented at making alot of people scared of liberals and exploiting that emotion. Not real liberals, understand, but their cynical idea of liberals as pointy headed intellectual nurturers of anti-American terrorists. And when people are good and scared, they will likely be in less of a mood for a sober, critical approach to their circumstances.
    “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country” (Hermann Goering, April 18, 1946).

  73. Little Wolf,
    One more thing…
    The same standard you apply in your criticism of the delivery of the Democratic Party message, we can also apply in terms of Israel and Zionism. Much the way the conservative echo chamber has demonized liberals and liberal values, the Arab-Muslim establishment has effectively demonized the basic human right of the Jews to assert their national self-determination in Israel. As the Arab-Muslim establishment has convinced its near billion consituents from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the Pacific Rim that they are somehow existentially threatened by 6 million souls on 20,000 square kms of Mediterranean coast, movement conservatives in the US have convinced 51% of the national electorate that liberals are a threat to God, flag and family.
    So, yes, just as Jews, Israelis and Zionists need to improve their ability to deliver a message of equality among the family of nations, Democrats need to improve their ability to deliver a message that public interests is better for more Americans than institutionalized narrow private interests. But just as Jews, Israelis and Zionists cannot be expected to compromise away our basic right of national self-determination for the sake of those who would demonize it, neither should Democrats and other liberals feel compelled to become more complicit to a Republican laizzez-faire agenda.

  74. No lessons learned. None at all.
    Fraudulent, misleading arguments? Check.
    “Because turnout was very high on both sides this time, John Kerry actually attracted more voters in this election than Clinton or Gore (or Ronald Reagan) did in theirs.”
    Ummm, regarding Reagan, do you think the population of the USA might have grown since 1980 and 1984? Wouldn’t judging by percentage, rather than absolute numbers, be the right way to look at this?
    Condescension? Check.
    ” And when people are good and scared, they will likely be in less of a mood for a sober, critical approach to their circumstances.”
    Repulsive comparisons (this, in an argument against ‘demonization’!) Check.
    “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country” (Hermann Goering, April 18, 1946).”
    More repulsive comparisons? Check.
    “Much the way the conservative echo chamber has demonized liberals and liberal values, the Arab-Muslim establishment has effectively demonized the basic human right of the Jews to assert their national self-determination in Israel. As the Arab-Muslim establishment has convinced its near billion consituents from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the Pacific Rim that they are somehow existentially threatened by 6 million souls on 20,000 square kms of Mediterranean coast, movement conservatives in the US have convinced 51% of the national electorate that liberals are a threat to God, flag and family.”
    So how does this “demonization” thing work, anyway? Does it have to do with comparing people to murderous Arabs and suggesting that theyr’e taking Goering’s advice?
    “Bush-Cheney proved themselves very talented at making alot of people scared of liberals …”
    Hah. No need for Bush and Cheney to do that. People like Zionista have done a fine job of it. I’d love to send the above posts to everyone in the country.

  75. Zionista:
    I think we may finally be getting to the point where I’ve trying to get since early in this thread. I have not been suggesting that the Democratic Party mirror the ‘content’ of the Republican Party platform, I am suggesting we analysis how they have gotten to where they are now and make that work for us.
    The start is communication. A refined national agenda is also important. The Republicans started to do this with the ‘Contract with America.’ They refined a national agenda, and ran with it in a mid-term election. They also focused on a number of states with open Gubenitorial races and chances to make advances in state legislatures. They slowly built from the bottom while continuing to refine and retune the message they were trying to communicate. Then they began to find which people were the most effective at communicating that message and began to promote them on the national stage.
    This is what I’ve been trying to communicate myself from the beginning. Obviously at this point I would not make a very good candidate, my ability to communicate leaves something to be desired. : )

  76. Little Wolf: “I have not been suggesting that the Democratic Party mirror the ‘content’ of the Republican Party platform, I am suggesting we analysis how they have gotten to where they are now and make that work for us.”
    You surprise me. What do you mean “we” and “us”…?
    Little Wolf (11/09/04 12:45pm): “I would have loved to have had a Democratic candidate that I could have voted for. I have never voted for a Republican for President before now.”
    I can’t really see how your’e leveling with us here, Little Wolf. See, to our friend J and other regurgitators of the conservative echo chamber, liberals like me and Democrats in general are supposed to lack the “moral compass” to choose a president, commander in chief, and leader of the free world. So, of course they demand liberals be less “arrogant” and “elitist” by becoming more like them, believing what they believe, and ultimately turning Republican. No surprises there. I suppose to the sort of mind in which John Kerry can be both a “flip-flopper” and the “most liberal member of the Senate” at the same time, this sort of thinking makes a kind of sense. But here you are, you call yourself a Democrat, make vague claims on liberal principles, and you vote your approval of Bush-Cheney agenda — but Democrats shouldn’t become Republicans. I don’t get it.

  77. And still nothing learned.
    “You surprise me. What do you mean “we” and “us”…?”
    Alienating the swing voters? Check.
    But let’s get one thing straight. Someone who refuses to address criticisms of her positions and who dumps entire articles into posts in a comments section like this has no business calling someone else a “regurgitator”.
    “So, of course they demand liberals be less “arrogant” and “elitist” by becoming more like them, believing what they believe, and ultimately turning Republican. ”
    No, actually, we demand that you become less arrogant before you become like us. It’s not becoming like us that will make you less arrogant; what can make you less arrogant is beginning to recognize that you possess no innate superiority, and that your’e only as good as your ideas are. Therefore, it’s important to actually examine your ideas and support them with arguments. Once you do this (not likely, but you never know), you may then consider “becoming like us” (sounds like bad science-fiction, doesn’t it?) You make it sound shocking that we would want people to come around to our way of thinking, but of course that’s common to anyone who advocares a position. It would be an improvement if you could try to do this by addressing criticisms and avoiding Nazi comparisons.
    “I suppose to the sort of mind in which John Kerry can be both a “flip-flopper” and the “most liberal member of the Senate” at the same time, this sort of thinking makes a kind of sense.”
    Not that hard to understand. During his years in the Senate, Kerry established himself as very far to the left. With his run for president, during the primaries and election campaigns, he took numerous contradictory positions, earning himself the “flip-flopper” tag.
    I’d like to thank you, Zionista. I’m going to print this thread and show it to various people across the political spectrum. It should have the greatest effect on the liberals, who will surely be none too happy with your Nazi/ Arab comparisons. When they see who their political bedfellows are, they may consider switching beds. Thank you for showing all of us your true colors.
    “I don’t get it.”
    On so many levels.
    Little Wolf-
    You know that hotel room you rented in Republicanland during Election Day? You might want to consider buying a house there. If Zionista is any representation of what Democratland is like, why not leave it now before it embarrasses you further? And don’t worry – there are lots of Jews here in Republicanland, and more are coming every day. And yes – I intend to celebrate Election Days right on through my nursing home years.

  78. Zionista:
    I am a Democrat. I have never said anything about Senator Kerry being a ‘Flip-flopper’ or ‘The most liberal member of the Senate.” Nor have I ever said I accepted them. I voted based on what I saw as the weakness of my own parties candidate on SOME issues that were important to me and an inability to communicate TO ME what he wished to accomplish over the next 4 years. I voted for Clinton and Gore. (Even though I was uncomfortable with Gore for many of the same reason I was uncomfortable with Kerry.) Having said all of that: I am still a Democrat. I know that many further toward the left end of the party have had a problem with them, but both Ed Koch and Zell Miller are active Democrats who supported President Bush over Senator Kerry for many of the same reasons that I did. The saw Senator Kerry as not representing what they felt was important in THIS election.
    Why is it such a problem to believe that anyone could vote with out being so beholden to the party to which they are registered that they can not evaluate the candidates for themselves. To vote for a candidate SIMPLY because they are the candidate for your party seems to take away from the concept of democracy. Not as a direct comparison but as a sample of where that could lead is the communist states where you could only vote for one party. (That is an extreme case, but it represents what I am looking.)
    J:
    As far as one party or the other, I think it should be clear not that I am not going to switch parties. But not being a registered Republican will no more prevent me from voting for a Republican candidate, than being a Democat will cause me to automatically vote for a Democratic candidate.
    Both:
    This is sort of a general observation that pertains to the staunch stances of both parties in general. The Left and Right as they exist now are begining to cause a separation from the moderate elements of both parties. As such if the parties themselves become more extreme in the policy positions they take they will force the formatio of a new centrist party. If this WOULD occur it would weaken both of the parties AND the country as the new political situation sorts itself out.
    As said before, I personally would like to look ahead. 4 years isn’t as long as it seems, and the mid-term elections will be kicking off in just about 14 months. If the Democratic Party hopes to begin to recover any part of the Congress and state positions the time to start is TODAY.

  79. “The saw Senator Kerry as not representing what they felt was important in THIS election.”
    Just this election? Or has there been a strong undercurrent of anti-Americanism, often manifesting itself in a fear of using American power, running through the Democratic Party ever since McGovern?
    On economic and social issues, the Democrats have been competitive. But on foreign policy, the Democrats have not been mainstream for more than 30 years. Consider that of the three Presidential election victories the Dems have had since McGovern, one came on the heels of Watergate, and the other two came during the hiatus between the Cold War and the war on terror, and all three came against exceptionally weak Republican opponents.
    This is what Zell Miller was talking about, though I have to say I was amused that it took him this long to realize that the old party of Truman, staunch anti-communism, and Scoop Jackson has been long gone.
    Face it – for foreign policy, the Republicans are now the Centrist party. And with nuclear and terrorist threats looming, foreign policy is going to be of paramount importance for a long time.

  80. J: “what can make you less arrogant is beginning to recognize that you possess no innate superiority, and that your’e only as good as your ideas are.”
    The conservative echo chamber never stops telling itself how liberals lack a moral center, but somehow it’s the liberals who have the superiority complex.

  81. J: “I’m going to print this thread and show it to various people across the political spectrum.”
    I’m flattered. More folks reading my stuff. Just don’t be selective, J. Be sure to show it to them in its entirety and verbatim.
    One more question. How come you keep referring to me as a woman?

  82. Little Wolf,
    I mean no disrespect. On the one hand you say you prefer the Democratic message over that of the GOP, but on the other you vote your approval of the Bush-Cheney status quo. On one hand you say you prefer message over charisma, but on the other you say you cast your vote for Bush-Cheney because you feel that Kerry-Edwards didn’t deliver the Democratic message as effectively as Bush-Cheney delivered theirs. I was only trying to understand. I still don’t, but that’s fine.

  83. Zionista:
    It is fairly simple. I believe that the strength of the Democratic Party has always been it’s ability to appeal to a broad sprectrum of the population with a populous oriented message. To do this you need more than just a message, you need a messenger capable of delivering it. I have said before that I felt Senator Edwards was a much better speaker that Senator Kerry. I felt that Senator Kerry had trouble explaining HIS plan for the future. This being the case, I was stuck with evaluating what I had before me. The other thing I want to specify is the idea of Charisma. While personal charisma is a useful thing, and even more so in politics, it is not exactly what I am talking about. Effective group communication is partially about charisma, but as with any public speaker, if charisma all you have you will soon wilt.
    Think of the difference between any two public speakers you have heard in your life, out side of politics. Think of who was a better speaker and why.
    As an example of what I am talking about. When I was in college I went to a program in which Vincent Price spoke. He was not speaking about movies or anything like that, he was speaking about art. Truth to tell you, at this point I am not quite sure exactly what he was talking about after all this time, but I remember going to the program and being enthralled by him and the topic, though I had no interest in art at the level he was speaking. Why? Vincent Price did have personal charisma. But he had something else as well, he had the ability to grab the audience and take them on the journey he wanted. THAT is what I am talking about, the ability to captivate people when discussing anything. Former-President Clinton had this ability. If he walked in to a room and began speaking about the whether, he would captivate the room. His big disadvantage was he would also, in captivating people, cause some of them to close him out after a while. Senator Kerry does not have this kind of speaking ability, VP Gore does not have this kind of speaking ability. Frankly, President Bush doesn’t have this kind of speaking ability. The President’s big advantage is that he does have the personal charisma, and a sense of humor to over come that problem and to connect with people in a different way. Senator Kerry, didn’t communicate his message well, he was ineffective at capturing the attention of the centrists, people who generally when they are undecided break for the challenger, in a way that was to draw them to him. In a sense, by not creating the ‘drive’ in them to vote for him, many of them, and I am one, who felt that it was better to go with ‘the devil they knew, rather than the devil they didn’t.’
    One final point on this subject, that also relates to looking to the future. The message that is being lost on large percentage of the population is that Democrats are just as moral and value based. The values, especially when moving beyond the individual, tend to be a bit different than the Republicans, not worse or better, just different. The real thing is that Democrats tend to take the idea of morals and values as a personal thing, where Republicans, with the help of the ‘Christian Right’ have made these public issues. That needs to change in order for the Democrats to be effective in future elections. I am not saying that Democrats have to become ‘psuedo’-Republicans. They need to show how the differences apply to everyone. (Again it comes down to effective communications.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.