Why the Democrats lost

[burner69]

sorry.
cud u explain the satire? Sorry

 

[gh0st]

sorry.
cud u explain the satire? Sorry

because people seem to think americans have this rediculous patriotism that elevates beyond respect for our country to hate for the rest of the world, which isnt true. cud is something a cow chews.

 

[burner69]

Cheers. I figured you were joking with it, just checking

We're on a forum, not writing a book. Please don't knock my ability to spell when clearly I was abbreviating. (unless you were jkn there, if you were sorry for this bit)

 

[gh0st]

We're on a forum, not writing a book. Please don't knock my ability to spell when clearly I was abbreviating. (unless you were jkn there, if you were sorry for this bit)

yep im a joker

 

[burner69]

Keep it up man! :cheers:

 

[seinfeldrules]

I heard a radio program this morning that said 40% of americans are belong to the evangelical faith ..so does Bush. Bush won because he tacked on the same sex marriage vote in a lot of the swing states ...pretty easy to read between the lines

Oregon and Michigan both had these votes tacked on. Kerry won both. If you are saying that 59 million people voted solely because of gay marriage then all I have to say is: .

 

[ShadowFox]

You can't assume his vote would've gone to Clinton. Perot was a businessman and a lot of what he was saying appealed to corporate America, independent != liberal.

Why not?

I never said independent means liberal. Perot was obviously rather conservative economically. Hell, his whole platform was debt reduction. But the fact is, I said it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that had he not run, one out of his eight percent of the popular vote could have gone to Clinton, thus giving him the majority.

Christ, some of you get so bent out of shape over the smallest comments, and in the end it is pointless to argue. I think some of the Perot voters would have went Clinton, and you don't.

Oregon and Michigan both had these votes tacked on. Kerry won both. If you are saying that 59 million people voted solely because of gay marriage then all I have to say is

This is a stupid comment and you know it. Even though Bush could have won anyway (we don't know), you can't possibly say that the gay marriage referendums had no effect. They most likely helped to mobilize segments of the Bush camp that might not have voted otherwise.

It was smart thinking on the Republican's part and the Democrats had no issue that could answer.

 

[seinfeldrules]

This is a stupid comment and you know it. Even though Bush could have won anyway (we don't know), you can't possibly say that the gay marriage referendums had no effect. They most likely helped to mobilize segments of the Bush camp that might not have voted otherwise.

It was smart thinking on the Republican's part and the Democrats had no issue that could answer.

I never said it didnt play any role, but Bush won states where it wasnt on the ballot, and he lost states where it was. It cannot be viewed as the main reason he was elected, maybe a part of it. The exit polls showed that only 20% of people found moral issues #1. The other people were voting on the economy, terrorism, war, and other issues.

 

[Neutrino]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6401635/site/newsweek/

Culture Wars: Winning the 'Values' Vote
It was on 11 ballots, and won on all of them. How the anti-gay-marriage initiatives shaped the presidential contest

For weeks, gay-rights activists had been bracing for the worst. Pre-election polls told them that contentious anti-gay-marriage initiatives, on the ballot in 11 states, would likely pass in all but Oregon. One by one on Election Day, those predictions came true. And then some. In the end, it was a clean sweep—even libertarian-leaning Oregon eventually voted to outlaw same-sex marriage by 56 percent, despite a $2.8 million push by gay groups. In eight states, including Ohio, Michigan and Utah, the measures went even further. They curtailed rights granted under civil unions and domestic partnerships, which could affect unmarried straight couples, too—a position to the right of President Bush and other Republicans. Ohio's Republican governor opposed his state's initiative. It still passed with 62 percent of the vote.

Religious groups vowed that gay marriage would send evangelicals flocking to the voting booth. Exit polls showed that 22 percent of voters named "moral values" as the most important issue to them—ranking it higher than the economy and the Iraq war. Of them, 79 percent voted for President Bush. In Ohio, 24 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as "white evangelical/born-again Christians."

Gay marriage was a key part of Karl Rove's turnout strategy, and stood out as one of the cultural fault lines dividing the two Americas. Overwhelmingly, Americans say they oppose same-sex marriage, yet favor civil unions and other rights for gay couples. But the issue became a catchall for the concerns of Christian conservatives, who were already fed up with the many restrictions "activist" judges had imposed on them: rulings protecting abortion, banning school prayer and limiting religious displays in public buildings. The biggest concern: that judges in their states would follow the Massachusetts Supreme Court and force gay marriage on them. "It was a target," says Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council. "It was a very clear focus of where to channel their frustration, their aggravation at what the courts have done."

But the measures, intended to bypass the courts, will inevitably wind up in the dock. Gay-activist groups are already planning lawsuits to challenge the new provisions. "Fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote," says Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

A judge in Louisiana, which passed a similar anti-gay-marriage amendment earlier this year, already overturned the measure on a technicality: the ballot initiative put two issues before voters—gay marriage and civil unions—at once, a violation of state law. The Lambda Legal Defense Fund is planning to use the same tactic to challenge Georgia's just-passed amendment. Other activists will argue that the amendments violate equal-protection rights.

The one question that looms over all of these state battles: what will Bush do? Appealing to evangelicals during the campaign, the president repeatedly said he'd push for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriages. But Bush has shown no real enthusiasm for the issue. Christian leaders had to lean on him to back it, and even then he was slow to embrace it. Even some gay activists are hopeful that the amendment push will fade from sight in a second Bush term. "Now that he doesn't have to run for re-election," says Foreman, "hopefully he can call off the dogs."

 

[seinfeldrules]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._election_wrap&cid=694&ncid=1963&sid=96378798

WASHINGTON - Reflecting on how he delivered President Bush his second term, White House political adviser Karl Rove admitted Sunday that John Kerry vote for, then against, funding in Iraq and Afghanistan was the "gift that kept on giving."



The deft strategy of Rove, whom Bush calls the architect of his re-election campaign, is credited with helping move the nation from the 49 percent to 49 percent stalemate of the 2000 election to a 51 percent to 48 percent split in the Republicans' favor.


"The country is still close, but it has moved in a Republican direction, and this election confirmed that," Rove said on NBC's "Meet the Press."


Tactically, Kerry's decision to vote for the $87 billion in funding for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then deciding in October 2003 to vote against it, was a bonanza for the president's campaign, "the gift that kept on giving," Rove said.


.....

Rove played down the importance to the campaign of "moral values," which exit polls last Tuesday unexpectedly identified as a major consideration of many voters, especially those who voted for Bush.


Rove said 34 percent of the voters were motivated by issues surrounding Iraq and the war on terror, compared with 30 percent motivated by moral values. "What essentially happened in this election was that people became concerned about three issues: first the war, then the economy, jobs and taxes and then moral values. And then everything else dropped off of the plate," he said.

 

[blahblahblah]

Neutrino - The get out to vote campaign's for evangelical Christians was only a little bit stronger than in past years. That does not explain the 3 million vote difference.

There were a host of differences on why Bush one. A higher democratic defection rate, higher latino vote for Bush (than expected) were among the reasons why Bush one. I hate the fact that people think the entire election was determined by one factor, when in reality Kerry lost in multiple areas. Yes, evangelical Christians did play a role, but nothing Kerry could have prevented if would have made up for the last votes with his democratic party and the latino population.

 

[No Limit]

Neutrino - The get out to vote campaign's for evangelical Christians was only a little bit stronger than in past years. That does not explain the 3 million vote difference.

There were a host of differences on why Bush one. A higher democratic defection rate, higher latino vote for Bush (than expected) were among the reasons why Bush one. I hate the fact that people think the entire election was determined by one factor, when in reality Kerry lost in multiple areas. Yes, evangelical Christians did play a role, but nothing Kerry could have prevented if would have made up for the last votes with his democratic party and the latino population.

I have to disagree. I honestly believe that the only reason Bush won was because of his faith. I had many religious friends who were democrats but voted for Bush only because of his faith (mostly because of the abortion issue). I think about 25% of all voters said faith was the most important issue, out of them something like 80-90% voted Bush. This is a huge issue and it had to make a huge difference. I am presonally disgusted that religion played such a huge role in this election. From now on to be president you don't need to do what's better for the country, you simply have to follow the bible blindly and get all the religious folks to turn out.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The economy and jobs was a 80/20 split in favor of Kerry. It should have nulled the moral values vote. Then terroism played a large role with a 86/14 majority going to Bush.

 

[CptStern]

I dont understand why terrorism played a factor in the election ..common sense says kerry should have won if that was the only factor in the election. The US is not safer since the war on terrorism ..actually it's the opposite. Bush lied over a 1000 soldiers died ..that alone is enough of a failure to want someone else to do the job.

 

[ShadowFox]

I dont understand why terrorism played a factor in the election ..common sense says kerry should have won if that was the only factor in the election. The US is not safer since the war on terrorism ..actually it's the opposite. Bush lied over a 1000 soldiers died ..that alone is enough of a failure to want someone else to do the job.

The demographics were not done that way. Those who said Terrorism was their main issue went heavily Bush.

But those who said Iraq specifically was their main issue went heavily Kerry.

 

[othello]

The economy and jobs was a 80/20 split in favor of Kerry.

which only further proves how little research bush-haters actually do.

Bush lied over a 1000 soldiers died

ahh... uninformed AND a bleeding-heart to boot. tell me, what did bush lie about, exactly?

 

[CptStern]

ahh... uninformed AND a bleeding-heart to boot. tell me, what did bush lie about, exactly?

the entire justification behind the war ..oh and before you start with your pre-amble have a gander at this

prove me wrong! No one here has been able to, maybe you'd like to take a crack at it

 

[seinfeldrules]

prove me wrong! No one here has been able to, maybe you'd like to take a crack at it

The basis of evidence isnt on him. You are making the claim he lied intentionally. There is no evidence of that. There is evidence he was misinformed, but did not intentionally lie to the world and the American people. If there was, it would be all over the media and he would have likely been impeached.

Those who said Iraq was top issue went heavily with Kerry

Not true. It was less than a 60/40 split in favor of Kerry.

 

[CptStern]

The basis of evidence isnt on him. You are making the claim he lied intentionally. There is no evidence of that. There is evidence he was misinformed, but did not intentionally lie to the world and the American people. If there was, it would be all over the media and he would have likely been impeached.

oh come on ..he planned to invade Iraq before 9/11 ...9/11 just gave him the excuse

 

[ShadowFox]

Not true. It was less than a 60/40 split in favor of Kerry.

Yep.. I'm making this up..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/05/opinion/meyer/main653931.shtml

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yep.. I'm making this up..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/05/opinion/meyer/main653931.shtml

Whoops your right. It was a 26-74 split for Kerry. I forgot the correct numbers

 

[seinfeldrules]

oh come on ..he planned to invade Iraq before 9/11 ...9/11 just gave him the excuse

Sounds like a real reliable source... somebody who was fired making claims against the man who fired him. Why would the treasury secretary know about these foreign policy decisions in the first place? I am sure we have plans to invade almost every country on earth if need be. These are the type of things that must be done to cover every scenario possible.

You have still yet to provide evidence he intentionally lied.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

1 out of every 5 voters chose Bush because of "cultural values". Possibly more.

Kerry and Bush have basically the exact same religious values. However, Kerry said he would not let his belief supercede logic when it came to the secular affairs of government, while Bush sees no problem with making christianity into law which everyone must follow. Therefore, 79% of cultural voters voted directly for the merging of church and state.

Now, Bush got 58 million votes. 20% or more came from the utterly illogical gay marriage ban. Without those numbers, he would not have won.

Add the people who voted for the Iraq war because it was "God's plan," and the people who voted Bush because he is "bringing god into the white house," and it's clear that Bush would not have won without the illogical christian vote.

The story Neutrino posted is totally right. Even perennial conservative seinfeldrules' rebuttal is a story citing an (obviously unbiased) Karl Rove guess that the number of people who voted Bush because of "cultural issues" is as high as 30%.

30% of his votes came from a policy of putting christianity before America for no logical reason.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The story Neutrino posted is totally right. Even perennial conservative seinfeldrules' rebuttal is a story citing (an obviously unbiased) Karl Rove guess that the number of people who voted Bush because of "cultural issues" is as high as 30%.

They cite Karl Rove's plan in Neuts story. Who better to rebuke that then the man who actually made the plan?

Add the people who voted for the Iraq war because it was "God's plan," and the people who voted Bush because he is "bringing god into the white house," and it's clear that Bush would not have won without the illogical christian vote.

He also would not have won if people didnt trust him on the terrorism issue. You cannot single out one thing as winning the election, it was a whole grouping of events and priorities.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

They cite Karl Rove's plan in Neuts story. Who better to rebuke that then the man who actually made the plan?

The real point of Neut's quote is that nearly 22% of Bush's votes came from value voters. It doesn't matter is Rove planned it or not. Your rebuttal quote only confirms what Neut said, and suggests that it is worse.

He also would not have won if people didnt trust him on the terrorism issue. You cannot single out one thing as winning the election, it was a whole grouping of events and priorities.

Yes, but terrorism and Iraq are logically debateable issues. Same with everything else on the list.
Except "values".
The gay marriage ban is not logical at all. In the secular system of government, it should never have been brought up in the first place.
So, if you remove the votes that came solely because Bush is playing favorites to christianity to the detriment of everyone else, Kerry wins in a relative landslide.

If religion were removed as an issue (which it should be since American government is secular by design), and both candidates were religiously neutral, Bush would lose by about a 30% margin.

Kerry was the logical choice, but not everyone in America uses logic. That's why Bush won. He's the worse candidate, but the better catholic.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yes, but terrorism and Iraq are logically debateable issues. Same with everything else on the list.
Except "values".
The gay marriage ban is not logical at all. In the secular system of government, it should never have been brought up in the first place.
So, if you remove the votes that came solely because Bush is playing favorites to christianity to the detriment of everyone else, Kerry wins in a relative landslide.

If religion were removed as an issue (which it should be since American government is secular by design), and both candidates were religiously neutral, Bush would lose by about a 30% margin.

Kerry was the logical choice, but not everyone in America uses logic. That's why Bush won. He's the worse candidate, but the better catholic.

You are just assuming again. Kerry would have won if... Well he lost. If Bush hadnt gone into Iraq based off intelligence gathered under Presidents before him, then he probably would have won a landslide. If he hadnt inherited a recession then he probably would have won easily too. All the ifs are unimportant. Bush won, and won for more than one issue. Calling Americans that voted for Bush isnt going to win you many votes come 2008, heck it might have cost you 2004.

 

[Death.Trap]

The real point of Neut's quote is that nearly 22% of Bush's votes came from value voters. It doesn't matter is Rove planned it or not. Your rebuttal quote only confirms what Neut said, and suggests that it is worse.



Yes, but terrorism and Iraq are logically debateable issues. Same with everything else on the list.
Except "values".
The gay marriage ban is not logical at all. In the secular system of government, it should never have been brought up in the first place.
So, if you remove the votes that came solely because Bush is playing favorites to christianity to the detriment of everyone else, Kerry wins in a relative landslide.

If religion were removed as an issue (which it should be since American government is secular by design), and both candidates were religiously neutral, Bush would lose by about a 30% margin.

Kerry was the logical choice, but not everyone in America uses logic. That's why Bush won. He's the worse candidate, but the better catholic.

He's not Catholic, thought I would point that out. Neither is Kerry for that matter. Oh, he might have been baptised into the Catholic church. But he isn't a true Catholic. IE, he picks and chooses what he want's to believe.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The real point of Neut's quote is that nearly 22% of Bush's votes came from value voters. It doesn't matter is Rove planned it or not. Your rebuttal quote only confirms what Neut said, and suggests that it is worse.

Rove said 34 percent of the voters were motivated by issues surrounding Iraq and the war on terror, compared with 30 percent motivated by moral values. "What essentially happened in this election was that people became concerned about three issues: first the war, then the economy, jobs and taxes and then moral values. And then everything else dropped off of the plate," he said.

.!,?;":

 

[CptStern]

Sounds like a real reliable source... somebody who was fired making claims against the man who fired him. Why would the treasury secretary know about these foreign policy decisions in the first place?

do I need to find you an article from fox"news" before you'll accept it?
here's more ..are you going to refute them all?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/
http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/before9-11.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html

You have still yet to provide evidence he intentionally lied.

once a liar always a liar:

here's some proof he lies through his teeth:

"Bush asserted that Iraq was "harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner"; US intelligence officials told reporters this terrorist was operating ouside of Al Qaeda control. And two days before launching the war, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Yet former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr, who is conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, has said that intelligence was full of qualifiers and caveats, and based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. That is, it was not no-doubt stuff. And after the major fighting was done, Bush declared, "We found the weapons of mass destruction." But he could only point to two tractor-trailers that the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded were mobile bioweapons labs. Other experts--including the DIA's own engineering experts--disagreed with this finding. "

source

quite an interesting read

 

[seinfeldrules]

do I need to find you an article from fox"news" before you'll accept it?
here's more ..are you going to refute them all?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...eill-iraq_x.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLI...10/oneill.bush/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a..._o neill_says/
http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/before9-11.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Apr16.html

All by O'Neill- a man who was fired by Bush. How can you call anything he says unbiased? Furthermore, he was the Treasury Sec, not the CIA Director. How would he have had information on the intricacies of Bush's foreign policy plan?

Finally, intentional lie. If he was given misleading information it was a mistake, not an intentional attempt to mislead the public. The writer you chose to cite does nothing except bash Bush. FOX doesnt do this, yet you claim your sources are so superior? Get real stern, your attitude is wearing thin.

EDIT: Apparently he was a member of Bush's national security advisors, but it still seems too fishy for me. He was releasing a book at the same time he made these accusations so he was most likely trying to get more sales from it, which he undoubtedly did.

I also noticed in that article the fact that in 2001, John and Teresa gave a dinner party for Paul O'Neill after he became George Bush's treasury secretary. Same Paul O'Neill, I suspect, who later clashed with his boss, was booted from his job and wrote a crushingly critical book about W. that hit the best-seller list and became a major lethal weapon in hands of Bush opponents.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/o...,7512777.column?coll=green-opinion-columnists

Since Paul O'Neill is now challenging his own credibility, isn't this book about to be laughed out of town?:

O'NEILL: Yeah, and the other thing that's good, today the book is going to be available, and this red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets -- as an example, you know, people are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.

COURIC: So you see nothing wrong with that being at the top of the president's agenda 10 days after the inauguration?

O'NEILL: Absolutely not. One of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been this forever. And so, I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority. But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration.

 

[Korgoth]

Are we forgetting Richard Clark? Former counter terrorism chief, he also said it was bush's goal to go to iraq. He told clark to come back with proof saddam did 9/11, obviously there was none.

 

[brink's]

Its funny how even after 100+ pages/months of arguing no one has changed their minds on who should lead the US. Yet, you still keep arguing.

 

[Korgoth]

And you're still reading....

 

[CptStern]

All by O'Neill- a man who was fired by Bush.

so you're dismissing everything he says on the fact that he was fired and may have had a book deal?

ah but there's more than just O'Neill, he's just a light weight:


"Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century" report commissioned by Dick Cheney Feb 2001

"Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East'' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US ''military intervention'' is necessary ....

The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments....


source ..this is the actual report ..read it

here's a summary of the report


Project for the New American Century
principle members: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz

The actual PNAC document: Read it

Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century September 2000 - by Dick Cheney

''The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.''





____

 

[CyberSh33p]

dethroning a wartime president is difficult, no matter how good he was at said war

 

[seinfeldrules]

Are we forgetting Richard Clark? Former counter terrorism chief, he also said it was bush's goal to go to iraq. He told clark to come back with proof saddam did 9/11, obviously there was none.

Yet another book deal. What a shocker. There were more strings attached to this man than a puppet.

And again Stern, you are dodging the issue. Where is the evidence? All you can rely upon is O'Neill, who really didnt turn out to claim what you had hoped, and another disgruntled man with a book deal in Clark.

Clinton on Bush's invasion:

In an exclusive interview Thursday on CNN's "Larry King Live," the former president said he sees a good possibility that the international community will unite to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

"I still hope the United Nations can act together on this, and I still think there's a chance we can, and there's still a chance that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm," Clinton said.

He said Bush is "doing the right thing now" by gathering international support, but said he doesn't believe another U.N. resolution is needed to go to war with Iraq.

"As a matter of international law, I don't think it's required," Clinton said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/

Also, Clinton passed into law a bill which gave the US full authority to remove Saddam, at least on a domestic stance.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

 

[CptStern]

And again Stern, you are dodging the issue. Where is the evidence? .

staring you in the face

 

[seinfeldrules]

staring you in the face

You've quoted 90 page articles that nobody will read without even mentioning the name Bush. We arent talking about Cheney here. You dodge O'Neill now that his intentions are known, and you are still coming up blank over Bush. Face it, there was no huge intentional lie like you make it out to be. There are papers written all the time attempting to change American foreign policy. Judging by the first few names listed in each article, Cheney and others werent even the key authors.

O'NEILL: Yeah, and the other thing that's good, today the book is going to be available, and this red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets -- as an example, you know, people are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.

COURIC: So you see nothing wrong with that being at the top of the president's agenda 10 days after the inauguration?

O'NEILL: Absolutely not. One of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been this forever. And so, I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority. But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration.

 

[Neutrino]

Neutrino - The get out to vote campaign's for evangelical Christians was only a little bit stronger than in past years. That does not explain the 3 million vote difference.

There were a host of differences on why Bush one. A higher democratic defection rate, higher latino vote for Bush (than expected) were among the reasons why Bush one. I hate the fact that people think the entire election was determined by one factor, when in reality Kerry lost in multiple areas. Yes, evangelical Christians did play a role, but nothing Kerry could have prevented if would have made up for the last votes with his democratic party and the latino population.

I just posted the article without any comment. People are free to draw their own conclusions.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You are just assuming again. Kerry would have won if... Well he lost. If Bush hadnt gone into Iraq based off intelligence gathered under Presidents before him, then he probably would have won a landslide. If he hadnt inherited a recession then he probably would have won easily too. All the ifs are unimportant. Bush won, and won for more than one issue. Calling Americans that voted for Bush isnt going to win you many votes come 2008, heck it might have cost you 2004.

Calling americans loses votes? Eh?

The american government is secular by design.
Secularity is the basis of the north american concept of freedom, and the constitutions that protect it.
What I am saying is not just a 'what if'.

I am saying that Bush essentially cheated by making a religious belief into a secular policy, and then subsequently winning the election because of it.

This isn't a grey area like Iraq or the economy.
This is something that Bush should never have even considered doing if he were at all responsible.
He chose a select religious belief over the entirety of western society as it has developed over the last 200 years.
He chose christianity over America.
In the one case where his black-and-white "with us or against us" morality was finally realistically applicable, he intentionally chose the wrong side.

By directly contradicting the values inherent to the constitution, by playing favorites to one religion and discriminating against another, by selectively and frivolously dismissing "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for purely selfish reasons, Bush won 2004.

I'm not going to dismiss that so easily as "oh well, he won, get over it".