Skip to main content

View Diary: The Iraq War wasn't the reason for the resurgent Left, Bush was (212 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Left collapsed in 2004 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The Left finally collapsed in 2004...  
    For a number of reasons: They didn’t stop the war, the didn’t resurrect Labor, they didn’t save the environment… And Bush stole another election…
    Anti-Semitism was also another major reason…

    Love Me, I'm a Liberal!

    by simplesiemon on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 04:58:23 PM PDT

    •  You mean Islamophobia? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You want to clarify on the 'anti-Semitism' charge? That looks a bit left-field.

      Governments care only as much as their citizens force them to care. Nothing changes unless we change -- George Monbiot.

      by Nulwee on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 11:14:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. Democrats still are being Republican- (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      lite on most issues. It's just the "republican" part of that is the "republican" from about 15-30 years ago (depending on the particular policy) instead of today's far-right teabilly nonsense "republican" (mostly--republicans' desire to cut benefits programs seems to be a constant, so in that regard the aggressive pursuit of benefits cuts is closer to modern republican-ism than past republican-ism).

      Today's Democratic Party is only "left" when compared to some pretty outlandishly far-right lunacy in the Republican camp. Hell, I don't think today's democrats would be 'left' compared to democrats of Clinton's time on most issues.

      I'm not sure where your "anti-Semitism" comment figures. I understand that "semite" encompasses a broad swath of middle-eastern groups (i.e. it's not a synonym for "jew"), but I really agree with Nulwee that anti-semitism isn't as applicable as 'anti-islamism.'

    •  They could not do any of things you site (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      1) They could not end the war in 2004 - only the President could.  As to Kerry, he spoke of troops leaving starting in 2005 and internationlizing the effort - especially bringing in the neighboring countries to a summit to get us out as soon as reasonably  possible.

      2) How could labor be resurrected in 2004?

      3) No candidate - including Gore - had a better environmental record than Kerry, who spoke of the environment EVERY SINGLE DAY in 2004.

      4) It is true that Bush stole another election  - this did not collapse the left. It did lead to a huge amount of work in 2006 by Howard Dean and others - including Kerry, who gave a large amount of money from his PAC to Dean to fix the state parties.

      5) Antisemitism  ???????

      •  Bush violated (0+ / 0-)

        a number of standards of basic decency and clearly lied to win the election, but there is no proof he "stole" it in 2004, except to the extent he had no right to the power of incumbency.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 09:43:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  While not provable, it is highly likely (0+ / 0-)

          that JUST the people who came out to vote who had to abandon the effort because the lines were over 4 hours long in Democratic strongholds would have been enough to have changed the election. (Note - these were votes not cast so there was no recourse.)

          •  I hear that (0+ / 0-)

            But allegations of "stolen" made me think of voting machine conspiracy theories.  They cheated, gamed, or manipulated the election, I'd say.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 08:31:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I understand, but that is not the only way (0+ / 0-)

              to cheat - and it might be the easiest to later detect.

              In 2000 and 2004, multiple ways were used to suppress the vote of people eligible and likely to vote for the Democrat.  In 2000, one way was the inclusion on the felon's list of many African American voters never charged (much less found guilty) for felonies. In 2004, it was by lines and playing games with rejecting registrations.

              As these were votes never cast, there was no possible recourse by the candidates - even though there is no one who things they did not happen and that the intent was not to deny some people their right to vote.

              Similar things happened in Ohio and Florida in 2012, but the Obama over Romney margin meant he still won. (The scary thing is that without the 47% tape that margin would have likely been smaller.

              To me, cheated and stolen are basically synonyms. I do get your (I think ) inferred point that using "stolen" leads to people dismissing it as that of the conspiracy theories.  That is well taken and I usually refer to voter suppress and then point to the small margin - so I think I have the same reluctance to say straight out - stolen.

              As to the machines and other manipulations (such as allegations of shifting ballots between 2 (or more) colocated districts with the candidates in different order) may well have happened, but there is no way to prove they did.

              I do find it odd that exit polling on all states by the combination of the three networks ended in 2004. There always were a few where the early data got it wrong, but in general, the exit polling was remarkably good. In 2004, what was odd was that in several states, the exit polls and the "actuals" were significantly off - all in Bush's favor.

              This was not a new process so it is really hard to believe that it went haywire. As a statistician, I expected them to argue that the sample design was changed and was in error - and they didn't. They argued that the Bush voters were "shyer" in disclosing their vote.

              This seems crazy as the media favored Bush, cleaned up his errors, and you had the churches in many states calling a vote for Kerry a sin - because of abortion and gay marriage. Especially in states like Ohio, it is easier to make the case of Kerry voters being willing to say they voted for Kerry!

              •  I'm a voter protection veteran (0+ / 0-)

                of Ohio in 2004 and Iowa in 2012.  I know all of this.  It's the job of the Democratic candidate to be vigilant sooner and to win big or wide enough it doesn't matter.  It's absolutely wrong that Republicans use this tactic, but Democrats who don't organize to stop it derelict their duties as well.  I'm not going to get into questions of intent, i.e., whether republicans actually believe there's widespread fraud or that ID is a way to stop it, because that question doesn't matter to defeating the issue by showing there isn't and it won't.

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 09:00:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (28)
  • Law (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site