OP/ED: One Hot Democratic Minute - A Rebuttal; A Promise

One of the most bitterly fought and divisive Presidential elections in modern history is officially over and currently being inscribed in the history books. Before that ink dries immortal, one devasted but resolute Democrat would like to include a footnote. Many political victories will be claimed in analyses today, but one in particular deserves some attention. In a word: intolerance.


No other analysis explains why an incumbent that lost the confidence of at least half of Americans and most of the world can still win and expect to lead.



Karl Rove, the Senior Advisor of George W. Bush, found the jump button on the 4 million evangelicals he promised to deliver in '04, that chose to not vote in 2000 because it was revealed George put the W in dWi. As it turns out, the only thing people disapprove of more than George W. Bush is sodomy. Though many liberals will correctly cite fear as the winning message of the GOP this year, they will cite the wrong antecedent. In the end, fear of devastation from an outside force held nothing on the irrational fear of corruption from within. That fear by any objective standard remains irrational because there has never been anything greater than a zero percent probability of shotgun gay weddings, forced abortions, bible bannings or manditory worship of golden calves.

It was an aggressive get-out-the-vote 72-hour plan (perfected in 2002) targeting evangelicals in '04 with an extra push in the closing hours that made the difference. Whether intended or not, the timely late afternoon leak from Republican strategists that "we're losing," turned out new lines in rural Ohio still hours-long after extended-hour polling precincts had officially closed.

This is not a condemnation. Merely an acknowledgement of a winning strategy. Rove (and increasingly the GOP as a whole) is masterful at these hot button divisive issues and even better at mind games. The RNC successfully sold Gays, Guns & God to the target audience, without turning off the majority of moderates largely distracted with the Arnie and Rudi Show designed to appease tolerants.

The underground channel delivering the targeted message to get-out-the-intolerant-vote, as it turns out, was not FoxNews or any official means as even the President softened his tones in the final days of the campaign. As designed, the face of "modern" (aka compassionate) conservatism remained publicly palatable avoiding practically any serious mainstream analysis of it's underbelly. Less compassionate televangelists and countless off-the-radar pulpit politicians, however, made the real difference in 2004 as the 11 state turnout and mandate against "manlove" would indicate.

Looking at the 3 to 2 affirmation of the definition of marriage in just the state of Ohio demonstrates how important this reverse coat-tail for George W. Bush really was in terms of countering massive get-out-the-vote (and Bush) efforts from the Democratic Party. All of which (for the right) was done almost entirely off-the-radar by the most far right of the socially right wing.

You've got to congratulate the victorious, but you've also got to study them. Let nobody forget what took place this election and why George W. Bush ultimately won.

America was quietly asked to take a stand in a cultural war most didn't even know was being fought, and the media remained largely too timid to declare. Only a select few were let in on the rules. Many went to the polls thinking they were voting on issues like the economy or foreign policy. They might as well have stayed home. The election, as it turns out, was a referendum on tolerance. Intolerance won.

Social conservatives should feel victorious today, not only because they legitimately are, but have now officially solidified their role in governance for years to come. Having found their voice and now placed their thumbprint on elections across America at every level of government (most likely including Supreme Court appointments), this one voting block just determined the future direction of literally everything. Bush voters got everything they wanted and then some. All that will entail may not be revealed for a generation, but it will likely be monumentally impactful on every American no matter where one lives in the great divide of red and blue real estate.

Moderate conservatives, however, understandably intent on celebrating today might be well advised to not think too hard about what they've actually won. Or indeed, who really did win.

For the remaining 48% of you currently feeling sodomized this morning, now you know why.

But in a final word acknowledging the frequently heroic efforts of all those Democratic supporters this election (no matter what your official label), you did absolutely nothing wrong in this near perfect campaign to lead the nation in a new direction. Nearly half of the electorate including many, many "red state" Americans voted to elect the man his detractors spent a half-billion dollars to label the #1 Liberal Senator in America as President of the United States, and a former war protestor as Commander in Chief to preside over these tumultuous times.

That fact should not be pushed aside or ignored as a handful of moral imperialists now plant the flag of "Bush Country" on all of our seriously jeopardized American liberties no matter what the pigment of the America in which one currently resides.

Much ado will be made in the coming days about uniting again as a nation. We will. But that healing effort should not be misconstrued by anyone as submission to the authoritarian imperative of some to impose their own brand of morality on all. For it is inevitable that all authoritarians are eventually outnumbered and overthrown.

Tolerance will win in the end and the Human Agenda will prevail whether by evolution or revolution. That's a promise on which all Americans can rest assured.

This was a devastating blow.

The major part of me is crushed, but a small part of me is glad.

For the first time in his life, Bush is going have to finish something that he started. He's going to have to fix his own mess.

Everything he has ever done in his life, he has ruined, and was consequently bailed out of by someone else.

Let us see, now, for once, if he keeps ANY of the promises he made.

At the beginning of his first term, I supported him. I believe in fiscal responsibility, I don't like welfare, I don't support gay marriage, but I don't support the constitutional amendment, either. I believe in gun rights...when I think about it, I am rather conservative. But I am no Republican. (maybe I'm an old school Republican, and not what you call a "neo-con")

I supported him before 9/11, during 9/11, after 9/11; I supported Afghanistan, wholeheartedly...

...but then the Iraq talk started, and anyone who knows the history of Bablyon, up to Baghdad (I am a descendant of the Ottoman Empire) knows that even if we do achieve an actual democracy in Iraq, and not an installed leader like Allawi, it won't last long. (read the history of the region, the land of Iraq/Babylon has been fought over and switched hands again and again and again over the past 4 thousand years).

I still wanted to support Bush, but then he became more reclusive, his people more arrogant, more smug. That turned me off.

I don't blame Bush so much as I blame the people around him, because I always thought he wasn't that intelligent. But recent reports said that his military aptitude test gave him a higher IQ than Kerry, which got me thinking; if Bush is smarter than Kerry, than it may be a myth that he is really dumb, and it just may be an act to cozy up to an unintelligent public. Maybe he got C's because he didn't care in school, and had no reason to. Maybe he's doing it all on purpose. And he knows exactly what he's doing, and it's not incompetence, it's arrogance.

Anyways, here we are again. Bush promising to unite the country, and earn everyone's trust, yet behind the scenes, his people are busying rubbing their hands together, ready to unleash the power of their new "mandate."

I don't believe in God, and I don't believe in Bush.

But since there is no choice (anymore), we'll see.

[edit on 3-11-2004 by cstyle226]

I like your piece above. It does reveal a shift in momentum away from a debased and morally bankrupt society to one that if founded on time proven values that build strong nations. I thank God for that shift for it tells me that we may yet remain one nation under God until Christ comes again.

I would also like to point out that it is only Christian morality is the only ethic to produce lasting freedom and engender value on human life. Others have tried but always fail miserably.

One last thing. The humanist point of view will eventually win over the societies of the world for a short time just before the judgement and return of Christ but it is my hope that this nation is wiped off the face of the earth first. A large asteroid or supervolcano would do the trick. That way we would not have to fall to the biggest liar to ever come onto the scene of human history, the antichrist.

The humanist point of view will eventually win over the societies of the world for a short time just before the judgement and return of Christ but it is my hope that this nation is wiped off the face of the earth first. A large asteroid or supervolcano would do the trick. That way we would not have to fall to the biggest liar to ever come onto the scene of human history, the antichrist.

The only justice there is that the Christian Right will be wiped off the face of the earth too. If I thought it would have kept Bush out of office I might have been willing to sign a paper that says I won't have a gay marriage and I'll got to church once a week. And since I already have a gun...I would have been in a pole position there.

The sad thing is Rant that they can ban gay marriage but they will never make the gay comunity dispear, they will always be here and they will move next door to you americans and they are everywhere they are humans, citizens, firends, brothers, sisters and even parents.

So better get used to them because they are going to live together wanted constitutional ban or not.

This moment in history will be marked by future historians as the point in time in which the decline of the United States clearly began. Not because someone many believe is a war criminal was elected, not because extreme theology became a tool, not because the democrats had no clear strategy, but because of the tactics used by the RNC to win at any cost. These tactics have so widely divided and steadfastly polarized an already polar populace, there can be little hope of recovery. United we stand, divided we fall. We are divided, and we have the RNC to thank.

1776 ~ 2004

Today is the right for gays to marry.
Tomorrow you will fight for the rights of pedophlies to have legal access to children

Originally posted by Vladtepes
Today is the right for gays to marry.
Tomorrow you will fight for the rights of pedophlies to have legal access to children

How in the hell did you ever draw this conclusion? You mind backing up this statement with a link or two?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This moment in history will be marked by future historians as the point in time in which the decline of the United States clearly began. Not because someone many believe is a war criminal was elected, not because extreme theology became a tool, not because the democrats had no clear strategy, but because of the tactics used by the RNC to win at any cost. These tactics have so widely divided and steadfastly polarized an already polar populace, there can be little hope of recovery. United we stand, divided we fall. We are divided, and we have the RNC to thank.

You are acting like Chicken little. The sky ain't falling.

This is the same sort of thing the Newspapers in the Country said about Abraham Lincoln when he won re-election, but look at him he went on to be remembered as one of the greatest of all time.

[edit on 3-11-2004 by BlackJackal]

Originally posted by BlackJackal

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This moment in history will be marked by future historians as the point in time in which the decline of the United States clearly began.

This is the same sort of thing the Newspapers in the Country said about Abraham Lincoln when he won re-election, but look at him he went on to be remembered as one of the greatest of all time.

Good analogy BJ!

But, Lincoln was far from being the greatest president of all time. In fact, I know a lot of people including myself, who believe that Lincoln did mark the end of the statist America established in 1776 and the beginning of the new American Corporate Government. Through the 14th Amendment, Reconstruction and other laws/acts this was allowed to take place. Though Bush hasn't aided in laws anywhere close to this, his presidency is taking on a uniqueness with the same effect. The Patriot Act (dealing with terrorists, foreign and domestic) and the emphasis on morals (like opposition to slavery) go to show that Bush is creating the means to an end. The end, who knows when and what that will be...

Funny how Bush can be compared to a Democrat though

[edit on 3-11-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Vladtepes Today is the right for gays to marry. Tomorrow you will fight for the rights of pedophlies to have legal access to children

An example of the absurd analogies of the extreme theist hate-at-any-cost rhetoric that divides rather then unites. And as far as Lincoln is concerned, yes, his election was a significant turning point for the "United States" as the autonomy of the states faded and the federal system gained power.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

An example of the absurd analogies of the extreme theist hate-at-any-cost rhetoric that divides rather then unites.

Yep - A man once told me that if we allow gay marriages soon enough we'll be polygamous, fighting for the rights of pedophiles and beastiality.

Oh for the love of...

You WIN OVERWHELMINGLY and retain control of all branches of Government and you STILL sound like you're oppressed and disenfranchised by the evil Liberals of the world.

We can still point and laugh at you in 4 yeatrs time because over the next 4 years you're going to have to claw your way out of the hole. Iraq is a mess, the markets a mess, the world hates you, oil prices are high, theres an enormous unimaginable deficit. There's no campaigning anymore, no hopes of reelection so the diversionary tactics aren't going to cut it anymore.

Guns, God, Gays. W04

It's kind of like a divine justice. You made the mess now you have to clean it up. I'll take great pleasure after 5 days when the press "honeymoon" ends.

Intolerance? Maybe. Ignorance? Definitely.

As much as you want to make this about gay marriage, it just doesn�t cut it. Yes, some exit polls (the same polls that showed Kerry winning by the way) said �moral values� was a deciding factor by many people, and yes, sadly amendments were passed in 11 states defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But, Mr. Kerry�s stance on this issue was hardly cut and dried. Perhaps an actual stand, for or against, may have helped him out some. Mr. Kerry describes himself as a devout Catholic, and surely he is also a man of moral values, yet that message never got out. Why is that?


I think the greater issue here is ignorance. Mr. Kerry spent far too much time listening to the celebrities that endorsed him and not enough to the people who would be electing him. The fact is that Mr. Kerry�s campaign, for better or worse, focused exclusively on negative campaigning. Every speech was �The President says (or does) blah blah blah, and we can do better!� Never once did he say what he really stands for, not his platform but he himself. In all the debates, speeches, interviews I saw, (and having had to spend 12 days in the hospital last month, and the last two weeks at home on the couch, with nothing to do but watch TV, I saw a lot) I never got a sense of this man at all. I believe he is out of touch with the very people he wanted to reach. The middle class average Joe going to work every day.

I also think this can be said of the Democratic Party as a whole. They too seem to be star struck by Sean and Bruce and Ashton. And what about the far left fringe groups? Do they represent gays or GLAAD? African-Americans or the NAACP? The workingman or the AFL-CIO? Who knows? They are not telling. Ignorance. Was health care an important issue? Yes. Did they sell it in the heartland? No. Was Iraq divisive? Yes. Did they drive it home with passion? Did Kerry do anything but criticize Bush and say, �I have a plan.� No.

I believe that many of the moderates, both on the left and on the right, that broke for Bush could just as easily have gone to Kerry had we got a little less Springsteen and a little more Kerry. I believe these people went to Bush because when they got into that voting booth they voted for the man they knew. They knew where he stood. They can reasonably predict what he will do. So much of Kerry was a mystery. He would not talk about his record in the Senate. He wanted people to think there was a huge vacuum between Vietnam and 2004 that didn�t matter. You can�t become President running this way. Ignorance.

The sky may not be falling right now, but if George invades a few more countries on trumped up charges, something nasty may be falling from the sky.

thank God for that shift for it tells me that we may yet remain one nation under God until Christ comes again.

And when Christ comes again, I have a feeling he will not be too pleased that we re-elected a guy that lied so he could invade a third world country, killing and maiming way more than the guilty.

He no longer needs to hide his agenda from anyone, George can do what ever he wants, without worrying about those pesky voters liking it or not. He sure won't need to worry about doing any healing with a bunch of folks he'll never need. I wonder if there will even be another election.

Funny how Bush can be compared to a Democrat though

Jamuhn, Um..did you edit out the name of said democrat, or did you mean Lincoln? He was a republican, wasn't he?

edit for double post, computer locked up...sorry

[edit on 4-11-2004 by frayed1]

edit: ditto above

[edit on 4-11-2004 by frayed1]

Originally posted by frayed1

Funny how Bush can be compared to a Democrat though

Jamuhn, Um..did you edit out the name of said democrat, or did you mean Lincoln? He was a republican, wasn't he?

I meant Lincoln. Lincoln was pro-Union, or pro-Federal Government, which is essentially Democrat. Republicans are supposed to be pro-state right's. But, is that much of the republican ideology is lost and on this point, along with a few others, Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
United we stand, divided we fall. We are divided, and we have the RNC to thank.

I'm not so sure that we have only the Republicans to thank for this division. It seems that the Democrats have played an equal role. This country has probably been building toward this conflict for a very long time. As someone pointed out on a prior thread, all we've heard during this election is anti-this and anti-that instead of actual positive approaches to anything. This mentality has been shared by liberals and conservatives alike. Sorry, I just think that your comment is a little one sided.

Also, I hate to say it, but religion has always played a role in our politics. Hell, it seems to be an unwritten rule that ALL presidents need to be Christian and at every election you hear mention of which denomination they belong to... because it is an issue.

Nerdling... this isn't a "knee-jerk" response, as I am not and did not vote Republican... Who are you talking to? I don't think I've heard any Republicans whining about being "oppressed" and "disenfranchised" since the election. If anything, it's the liberals that I hear doing the most of this. Just curious as to who that comment was a response.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by veritas93]