Ignorance and Ugliness Won

Bush won using attack dog campaigning, just as he always has. His campaign's only edge was division through character assassination.

Now we REALLY do have a one party system. In a shameful and disgraceful 'election', millions of Americans sold the rest of us, and themselves, out. Not only did they elect an unfit and undeserving President, they have taken us to an all-time national low.

Decency, sense, culture, honesty, accountability and society lost in the US on November 2, 2004. We have totally amoral 'leadership' across our stained nation, after the saddest election in US history. Welcome to the Soviet US.

Right and Kerry didn't use 'attack dog' campaigning.

Let's look at it this way. ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, George Soros, Michael Moore, Air America, ACT, Media Fund, Kitty Kelly and many many more gave it their all.

I have never seen a more concerted effort to bring a man down as there was against George Bush. Every trick in the book was tried. And it did not work. The people saw through it all.

Look back on the Campaigns. Bush's campaign was about Bush, Kerry's campaign was about Bush. Kerry did not effectively get his message out. The only thing you heard from Kerry supporters was, get Bush out of Office.

Look at this message board as an example. Look at the threads by Kerry supporters, how many were messages about what Kerry would as President and how many were merely attacks on Bush?

If the Democrats want to remain a national party and server the majority of the American People, they will need to come in a bit from the far left they are now.

The Democrats lost this time not because, as many Dems are venting now, the majority of Americans are idiots. They lost because they became the party of the far, far left, they became the party of Michael Moore. The majority of Americans do not like Michael Moore or his ideology.

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. And I am certainly not a religious person. However, I do believe that people in powerful positions such as the President should and must be guided by a value system. Democrats can scream their lungs out about the flaws in Bush's value system, but the truth is that most of the nation agrees with him. Democrats believe that all value systems are just. Republicans question that presumption. Until Democrats decide to take a stand, they will continue to lose elections.

I believe that there are millions of people in this country, including agnostics such as myself, who are desperate for moral guidance. I don't know if Bush is a person capable of providing that guidance. What I do know is that Kerry never would have tried.

No they didn't. Most people weren't looking at all and didn't see a thing. They went to the polls to vote against gays and against abortion. They never considered for a moment what Kerry was saying. It was a partisan election all the way down the line, and voters went to the polls out of religious and quasi-religious fervor, for the most part. As for these people you list as attackers, you list all of the networks as if they were in attack mode. They weren't. They just looked like that to you because in your blind partisanship you thought they should be helping you bring down Kerry. You're just too right wing to notice that they aren't really taking a side. I didn't see any of the networks attacking the Swiftboat ads (speaking of giving it your all in an attack ad), and the source of those ads was thoroughly investigated in print media and on the internet. The ads were mentioned in passing on cable news channels, and Fox gave them a lot of coverage (in a positive way). And as for the writers and radio broadcasters you listed, liberals are just catching up to your side in that market. We had to. The airwaves were teaming with that right-wing loon nonsense about liberals and no message from liberals was getting out at all. What was coming through was coming through in a haze.

I'm partisan and I admit it. You're partisan and are phony about it. But I see through it. I see through George Bush. About half the voters did. You claim the half that voted for Bush saw through Kerry. It's an argumentative draw. I can give you actual voices of some people who voted for Bush. Go to this link and listen to the recordings on any of those buttons (eleven in all):
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html.

That might clear up any delusions you have as to how perceptive voters on your side are.

If you're not a Republican, you sure sound like one. I can tell you this: with nonsense like you just spewed, you should not be speaking on behalf of Democrats. What you said is patently false. Democrats do NOT believe ALL value systems are just. We think there are personal RELIGIOUS values and there are social values that indisputable upon which you can base civil law. We can all agree that murder is wrong. We all agree that child abuse is wrong, and robbing banks and driving while drunk and so on. When it comes to privacy issues, it gets debatable. You don't have a moral right to decide what my morals should be if they don't in any way infringe upon yours. That's when these religious values become a problem, when the religion itself dictates to the Christian that he has to convert everyone, and wants to use them as the source for making law to accomplish his goal. For instance, defining the civil legitimacy of relationships. I recognize a person's right to believe it's immoral in the eyes of their god for two men to marry. I'm not gay, but I say it's simply none of my business and it'll not alter my lifestyle, my morals, my work, or anything else one jot or tittle if the state legally recognizes that union. And if you're going to use the Bible as a source for that moral code, you'd better do away with banks because usury is considered a sin in the Bible. I mean, if you're going to use it to define a civil matter, then apply it in ALL civil matters. That would include banks.

You claim you're neither a Democrat or a Republican, but you clearly defended a Republican point of view while dismissing the Democratic view outright, even insinuating

Ha! They did attack Bush, but he orchestrated the whole switftboat ads.

At the end of the day, the people voted for a draft dodger because they thought the guy who actually went to the war didn't fight hard enough.

That's not seeing thru it all

Stop being a sheep looking for the president (of all people!) to guide your morality... and start looking at yourself and objective reality. All you need for an understanding of morality is there. Atlas Shrugged may help if you don't see this.

Having a president who is certain about his 'morality' yet advocates immorality at every turn is NOT better than a president who sometimes advocates immorality, and expresses uncertainty about complexe situations.

You're following a fool because he's too stupid to see that he doesn't knwo the way

Psst ... remember Ken Starr?

Did they? Or, faced with 2 equally weak and worthless plans, did they choose the hell they knew, rather than a course they didn't?

Bush's campaign was about Iraq. All well and good if we are voting in a President of Iraq. Trouble is, we were SUPPOSED to be voting for a President for America.

That I agree with. However, I would say that he didn't have a message to get out. When both candidates have daily feedback from polls, how different can their message be?

Enlighten me - how is Kerry far left? Personally, America is not left enough. Its military budget is STILL grossly overinflated compared to the rest of the world, and our national debt is crippling our domestic agenda. We desperately need to stop talking about left and right and realize that unless we grow up when it comes to budgeting, we are heading for a depression that will make the 30's look like lost spare change under the couch.

I agree with most of what you said, except I do believe Kerry was effective in delivering his message: over 50,000,000 people voted for him (or against Bush). The problem, IMHO, is that even more people saw Kerry for what he is: a man who went to Vietnam, and after 4 months came back to betray his brothers in arms, meet with the enemy in Paris, and testify in Congress as to many things he hadn't seen, but had heard about. They saw a man who at one time proudly proclaimed to be a liberal but was not very interested in talking about his liberal record in Congress. And the Kerry-in-camouflage moment...? Well, it was so bad it didn't even rise to the Dukakis-in-a-tank fiasco. At least that one was funny.

I want to encourage the Demonrats, I mean Democrats, and especially the obviously-mentally-diseased liberals to insult and dismiss the likes of Bush and Reagan, and Condi Rice, and Rumsfeld, and whatever batch of Republicans are running in '08. I want to encourage the Demonrats to continue making fun of the fly-over country between the two coasts. I encourage you to dismiss the common sense of those 'evangelicals.' I ask you to continue embracing Michael Moore and his ilk as your standard bearers. Please, encourage your party leaders to get their picture taken with P. Diddy, and Bruce Springsteen, and Al Franken. Please continue to get your news from Jon Stewart and listen to his political opinions; he really knows what he's talking about. And by all means, make fun of the Nascar dads

Bush is more dangerous than stupid. And, he's very stupid.

Kerry would have succeeded. Kerry is a FAR BETTER person than Geo Bush could EVER hope to be.