Dude, John McCain was too liberal for the republican faithful.

He's still being denigrated by freepers as we speak!

No way in hell somebody more liberal than McCain, which Rudy is, would win the primaries. We're talking Bob Jones University territory here.

Rudy is just riding 9/11 as far as it will take him and in another 4 years I don't think he'll even have that going for him. He lost any respect I had for him the way he conducted himself while campaigning for Bush. I also don't think he's a strong enough figure to win the presidency. But then again I thought Kerry would win so what do I know.

The Dems are in mourning and probably still pinching themselves and wondering what the hell happened...it hasn't even been a week yet so give them some time and they'll come back to the table better than before. The only thing worrying me is Hillary. My gut tells me we aren't ready for a woman, let alone someone like her. I hope Bill tells her the truth (you'll lose your ass, so stay out of it).

Rudy was just an example. My point is Bush is not running in 2008 and who ever is will not have Bush's baggage. So it is time to get over it, drop all the stupid red states bullshit, stop smacking christians, no more talk about Iraq and how no one knows anything and start giving reasons why your party should win.

You won't though because what you lack in cold logic you make up for in hot emotions, not just you but your whole party, this will cause you to loose sight of the goal and get stuck in stupid little squables killing the party.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

I am curious RB. I live in Florida. I heard Kerry Campaign commercials refering to the Bush plan to raise the SS retirement age to 72 and cut benefits 45%. I heard Kerry talk about the Bush "ban" on stem cell research.

What percent of Kerry supporters believe that there is such a ban? What percent believe that Bush has those plans for SS?

-- You prove my point. You are wanting to get the digs in while you need to be changing minds.

-- The Dems are dead.

Cripes Tibbsy, cool it with the Democratic doomsayer posts. After all you predicted the country would take a gigantic swing to the left in 2008. :)

Dems don't need to change anyones minds about anything, but they do need to shed some of their current image problems. With a solid, simplified message and a more rounded, less high society character from somewhere south of Boston to deliver the message, they could easily win. Simplicity, consistency, and a solid figure...the Pubs proved that works. The issues are secondary and the study proves that. Its image and campaign tactics that wins elections...and wars and "terra" doesn't hurt either.

Not sure if you've read the Newsweek articles on the campaigns but I highly recommend them. After reading those I am even more convinced that Karl Rove and the Bush camp tactics won that election for Bush. They totally outcampaigned the Dems. That doesn't mean for a second that America is firmly siding with the Republicans and wouldn't easily vote for the right Democratic candidate.

In some ways I find it amazing that Kerry lost, but in other ways I find it amazing he came as close as he did considering the terrorism fears and going up against a sitting war president.

I have a degree in philosophy, I've forgotten more logic than you've ever known.

It's good to discuss what went wrong and to vent. Part of what went wrong is that there's a lot of Bush supporters that don't understand his philosophy.

Art,

The "ban" on stem cell research claim is based on the following:

• He banned federal funding for stem cell research that uses other than certain pre-existing cell lines; for good or bad, the loss of federal funding is a serious limitation for research in this country;
• The number of cell lines is very low; most of those lines are useless , leaving ~10-20 lines; this is held to be inadequate for research;
• Most of the remaining lines were cultured with mouse cells, leading to possible contamination with mouse virii (modern culture methods don't use mouse cells).

The facts on Bush's plan for SS:

• He pushes for partial privatization of SS, with some money to be moved to individually managed accounts;
• By moving the money out of SS, he creates a massive shortfall in funds (like $2 trillion dollars over some set of years) that are needed to pay currently promised benefits;
• The shortfall has to be accounted for in some way: 1) get it from general revenue (either raise taxes or the deficit; your choice), 2) raise the retirement age, or 3) cut benefits. I don't know the numbers, but this is the inescapable conclusion from his plan.

I'd also say that there is no comparison between the latter example (predicting the future) and the misconceptions held by people on verifiable facts (e.g., what policies Bush supports, and what policies his supporters think he supports).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Ken ...

while the report is interesting enough ... what it seems to say to me is "Bush supporters did not buy into the report, and Kerry supporters bought into everything in the report".

From my perspective ... when I hear Hilary Clinton say on TV, right before a predicted close election, "Everyone thought they had WMDs. we all did" ... that tells me that there must have been some really strong evidence that they did have WMD. It seems that Bush supporters are giving more weight to that information than to the latest reports, while the Kerry supporters value the late reports. The two sides seem so far apart on the issue that one wonders where the truth even is.

what I am saying is that very few peole sit down with a "baseball card" of each candidate and "compare stats" to see which one they are more in line with. This is where I point out that the War was just one issue.

News stations say different things. I've heard on the news that if Saddam could have the sanctions lifted or weaseled out of them that he was ready to go within days to start making WMDs again. Is that true? Does what candidate you support have an effect on that? Peole choose which news reports they believe based on which ones they want to believe.

It's amazing there can be so many slants on "the truth".

-----------------------------

FWIW, I did not support Kerry for a variety of reasons, least of which his stance on this war ... which was the same as his stance on the Gulf War.

----------------------------

In short, I don't see where the report shows that one side is more informed than another. IMO, it shows that the different camps believe different sources of information. It's not like American people are presented "one truth" and then people decide whether to accept it or not. On the news, talk radio, etc ... people are told a variety of things, and what clearly shows is that the seperate groups choose to believe completely different sources.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

This isn't a question of interpreting intelligence data. After all the searching in Iraq, everyone agrees that Iraq did not possess WMD when we went to war. Everyone agrees that there was no real connection between Iraq and al Qaeda or Iraq and 9/11. Everyone except a large percentage of those who voted for Bush.



What source of current information says anything that contradicts the misperceptions stated in the study?!? What source says that Bush supports US participation in the International Court (54% of Bush supporters incorrectly think he does)?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

When did i say I was looking for any kind of fight? I want people to have a clue about what their candidate actaully stands for. Republicans and Democrats alike are poorly aducated on the actual issues, and by 2008, both sides would be best served by fixing this.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"want people to have a clue about what their candidate actaully stands for."

Jeez, think about what that would do to all the ad men and the 527s who want to bullshit people into voting. Micheal Moore would have to get a job!

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

http://www.mindfully.org/...-Election-IQ2004.htm

there's more than a gap and it's more than ignorance. it's plain stupidity. you can't teach anyone who only cares about guns and the bible about fiscal responsibility and international relations. i find it upsetting that so many people in this country voted against their own interest based on "moral issues" and the war on terrorism.

i hope you're not trying to argue with me on this, because I've already said both sides are equally afflicted by the stupidity of their voters.

No. I'm not trying to argue, and I understood what you said. IMO, the last thing folks use to decide who to vote for is the actual candidate's policies (which rarely if ever seem to get defined and explained). They see the politicians on TV, and have an impresison they get. If they like the impression they get ... they support them. If not ... they vote for the other guy.

The big question is "what to do when both candidates suck?"

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

"After reading those I am even more convinced that Karl Rove and the Bush camp tactics won that election for Bush. "

No, the citizens of the USA won the election for Bush. Paint it anyway you'd like, but in the end the voters decided the election.

-- When did i say I was looking for any kind of fight? I want people to have a clue about what their candidate actaully stands for. Republicans and Democrats alike are poorly aducated on the actual issues, and by 2008, both sides would be best served by fixing this.


Unfortunately no way to fix it. People know just enough to think they know enough about who to vote for...and some don't even care. To solve this, I think we should all have to pass a simple test to be able to vote. It would discourage the real idiots from voting and if you do want to vote you actually have to learn the candidates positions. It could be as simple as having to look at the candidates positions on major issues and then having to match up the candidate with the agenda. If you pass this then you are allowed to vote. Then when you finish making your selections you have to confirm that you have voted for position X, Y, Z on the issues. If it were up to me, I'd write this into election law right now. We have to take a test to drive a car, why not to vote?

Your summary of the Bush's position is absolutely correct.

To summarize, there is no ban on stem cell research. Anyone can do as much as they want, whenever they want. Kerry lied in his ad. I wager most of his voters believe the lie.

Bush has no plan to cut benefits 45% or raise the retirement age to 72. Kerry lied in his ad. In that case, probably no one believed him given his loss in Florida. They have believed this lie, in decreasing numbers, every four years though.

The SS lie is just a variation of the lie Clinton used to bury a broke Paul Tsongus in the 1992 Florida primary. Lots of people apparently believed it that time.

"I have a degree in philosophy, "

I bet you sit around and pray for the time you can throw that out. About all that degree is good for. I will bow to your ability to out word me and quote really smart guys.

I have a masters from The School of Hard Knocks where logic is used to achieve things and win.



"I've forgotten more logic than you've ever known."

That is clearly obvious.

"Part of what went wrong is that there's a lot of Bush supporters that don't understand his philosophy."



And insulting them does nothing other than show you need to freshen up your degree.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.