QQ more noobs.
Disclaimer: I am not a Republican or Democrat. I offer this information as a service to Democrats and liberals the world over. Please remember before commenting that your candidate did indeed lose. *You* my friends, are in err about the will of the "majority". There was no light and mirrors tricks used here; no, in fact, your candidate was beaten, and beaten quite handedly by a horrible alternative. This is an explanation of why, coming from a former Republican. Make no mistake about it, I did not want Bush to get elected either, but choosing Kerry over Bush is like choosing the gas chamber over the electric chair, it's non-solution to fate.
So you're a Democrat and you were glued to the TV screen Tuesday night. Your jaw dropped to the floor in shock at what happened. How could Kerry have possibly been beat? How did they lose so many Senate seats? Below I'll explain what you simply do not understand. The biggest reason Democrats lost big in this election was two-fold.
First, southern Democrats that left office were not exactly what you could call "liberal". They believed in progressive morals, but maintained a solid connection with their respective religious organizations. Historically, a few of the Democrat senators had two ties that kept them in office, their sometimes racist stance on minorities and their unionized constituents. That era has changed, and not for the better for the liberals.
The Clinton/Lewinsky scandal is what started it. Ironically, as harshly as Republicans received backlash for pressing Impeachment, they also brought moral character to the forefront of the American political agenda. This is an area where many Democrats have sadly shown their ignorance. Rather than talk openly as to the “why” of their stance, they remain mute.
The "New Democrats" have lost all belief in God or choose to ignore moral issues by letting figureheads and celebrities speak for them. It is equivalent to letting your technical support professional explain why voice over IP should implemented to a CFO. It's too much data and acronyms coming from someone that probably doesn't understand the financial implications involved.
Laypeople do not understand the ethics behind letting two individuals of the same sex degrade the institution of marriage. It's a tough cookie to swallow, but Democrats have got to get out and explain the personal rights backing to same-sex marriage, and work with Republicans to break marriage (a religious institution) from the state. Unless the issue of church/state regarding marriage is addressed, it appears as if liberals are attempting to mar the church. Assurance that they are not trying to do that is absolutely key to this topic. Separation between state union and religious union is something that Libertarians have been addressing for years now in anticipation of this. Democrats should also adopt an educational stance on this issue.
Second, Democrats haven't changed their economic agenda since the New Deal. Fiscal Democrats do not understand their party’s stance on the economy. It very hard to explain that Medicare, Social Security, and other welfare programs need to be expanded when Americans know just how flawed they are. Bureaucracy taints the portrait of a valid solution to health care ills. My opinion on the matter is, of course, directly in opposition to that of the Democrats, but in this light I will still try to help.
The Democratic Party needs to quit living under the delusion that there are not serious issues with welfare, Medicare, and Social Security. They need to take an active approach to resolve the issues plaguing their poster child before they push forward with expanding coverage or even implementing a national health care plan. There are only two countries without universal health care in the entire world, but that in and of itself is not reason to prop up a bloated pig starving to expand.
There is no mistaking it. The elderly are leaving to Canada to buy drugs because of two reasons, the turnaround time on getting medication takes too long, and the prices are too high. Contrary to what you have believed, the price is not drug companies seeking solely to maximize profit. Yes, profit-taking does occur, but the real issue is the cost of FDA-approval. Research and development for new drugs takes an abnormally long period of time due to directives by this huge agency which regulates the sale of 25 cents of every dollar spent in the American economy.
The process simply must be streamlined in order for these drugs to get out quicker. The paranoia over low development times has ceased with the elderly now traveling in busloads to the Canadian border. Canada’s “Health Product and Food Branch” operates on a 30-day response time guarantee: they must provide a go or no-go response to the company developing and manufacturing the drug within thirty days or they are free to start producing it.
As you can see, there is still sufficient argument for national health care to exist in this country, but until Democrats actually sit down and agree to solve the real issues, it gives those, like myself, ammo for privatization and/or elimination of the federal regulations altogether. With such clear problems with regulation as it is, the American people do not trust the implementation of a system to provide medical assistance to the whole.
The term "liberal media" isn't exactly accurate, but there does exist amongst the Dan Rather’s of the media this figment that they are actually in the center, merely because they are surrounded by ultra-liberals. When this kind of deception happens, it is very easy for Republicans to appeal to the strong moral conservatives that do not generally vote. These individuals are similar to the equivalent liberal slackers, who do not vote simply because they think their candidate is right, and thus will win despite their vote.
It comes down to numbers. Relatives of mine are in these numbers. When they read the papers and hear that the Supreme Court gave Florida to Bush in the 2000 election, they argue “liberal media”, and perhaps rightly so, because they saw getting the lawyers out as an attempt by Gore to steal the election. They didn’t vote in 2000; call it apathy. I do. They went out and voted this time around because they were requested. They were told of the horrible consequences of letting the Democrats win the election.
Contrary to what post-election defeatist fallout in the left wing would suggest, this country is not headed to the right. No, instead, the silent majority of 1992 resurfaced to rear its ugly head. Keep that in mind when you next sound off about your ultra-liberal stances at bars, weddings, and other social events. You see that guy that doesn’t talk when you go off on your latest political rant? That guy disagrees. He could be your coworker, your best friend, your neighbor, or your relative. When he hears you talk, it is very easy for him to be convinced to go vote out of fear of what “crazy” issues you stand for.
Libertarians, like me, are often chided for our objectivity and lack of moral or emotional appeal when it comes to political topics. Now you, as Democrats, get to face the same kind of harsh reality. By speaking your mind, you end up alienating those that actually care about the issues, and driving them to vote. If Democrats expect their candidate to win in 2008, they will have to bridge the gap of morality and shift ever so much further to the center; something they earnestly do not wish to ever do.
So you're a Democrat and you were glued to the TV screen Tuesday night. Your jaw dropped to the floor in shock at what happened. How could Kerry have possibly been beat? How did they lose so many Senate seats? Below I'll explain what you simply do not understand. The biggest reason Democrats lost big in this election was two-fold.
First, southern Democrats that left office were not exactly what you could call "liberal". They believed in progressive morals, but maintained a solid connection with their respective religious organizations. Historically, a few of the Democrat senators had two ties that kept them in office, their sometimes racist stance on minorities and their unionized constituents. That era has changed, and not for the better for the liberals.
The Clinton/Lewinsky scandal is what started it. Ironically, as harshly as Republicans received backlash for pressing Impeachment, they also brought moral character to the forefront of the American political agenda. This is an area where many Democrats have sadly shown their ignorance. Rather than talk openly as to the “why” of their stance, they remain mute.
The "New Democrats" have lost all belief in God or choose to ignore moral issues by letting figureheads and celebrities speak for them. It is equivalent to letting your technical support professional explain why voice over IP should implemented to a CFO. It's too much data and acronyms coming from someone that probably doesn't understand the financial implications involved.
Laypeople do not understand the ethics behind letting two individuals of the same sex degrade the institution of marriage. It's a tough cookie to swallow, but Democrats have got to get out and explain the personal rights backing to same-sex marriage, and work with Republicans to break marriage (a religious institution) from the state. Unless the issue of church/state regarding marriage is addressed, it appears as if liberals are attempting to mar the church. Assurance that they are not trying to do that is absolutely key to this topic. Separation between state union and religious union is something that Libertarians have been addressing for years now in anticipation of this. Democrats should also adopt an educational stance on this issue.
Second, Democrats haven't changed their economic agenda since the New Deal. Fiscal Democrats do not understand their party’s stance on the economy. It very hard to explain that Medicare, Social Security, and other welfare programs need to be expanded when Americans know just how flawed they are. Bureaucracy taints the portrait of a valid solution to health care ills. My opinion on the matter is, of course, directly in opposition to that of the Democrats, but in this light I will still try to help.
The Democratic Party needs to quit living under the delusion that there are not serious issues with welfare, Medicare, and Social Security. They need to take an active approach to resolve the issues plaguing their poster child before they push forward with expanding coverage or even implementing a national health care plan. There are only two countries without universal health care in the entire world, but that in and of itself is not reason to prop up a bloated pig starving to expand.
There is no mistaking it. The elderly are leaving to Canada to buy drugs because of two reasons, the turnaround time on getting medication takes too long, and the prices are too high. Contrary to what you have believed, the price is not drug companies seeking solely to maximize profit. Yes, profit-taking does occur, but the real issue is the cost of FDA-approval. Research and development for new drugs takes an abnormally long period of time due to directives by this huge agency which regulates the sale of 25 cents of every dollar spent in the American economy.
The process simply must be streamlined in order for these drugs to get out quicker. The paranoia over low development times has ceased with the elderly now traveling in busloads to the Canadian border. Canada’s “Health Product and Food Branch” operates on a 30-day response time guarantee: they must provide a go or no-go response to the company developing and manufacturing the drug within thirty days or they are free to start producing it.
As you can see, there is still sufficient argument for national health care to exist in this country, but until Democrats actually sit down and agree to solve the real issues, it gives those, like myself, ammo for privatization and/or elimination of the federal regulations altogether. With such clear problems with regulation as it is, the American people do not trust the implementation of a system to provide medical assistance to the whole.
The term "liberal media" isn't exactly accurate, but there does exist amongst the Dan Rather’s of the media this figment that they are actually in the center, merely because they are surrounded by ultra-liberals. When this kind of deception happens, it is very easy for Republicans to appeal to the strong moral conservatives that do not generally vote. These individuals are similar to the equivalent liberal slackers, who do not vote simply because they think their candidate is right, and thus will win despite their vote.
It comes down to numbers. Relatives of mine are in these numbers. When they read the papers and hear that the Supreme Court gave Florida to Bush in the 2000 election, they argue “liberal media”, and perhaps rightly so, because they saw getting the lawyers out as an attempt by Gore to steal the election. They didn’t vote in 2000; call it apathy. I do. They went out and voted this time around because they were requested. They were told of the horrible consequences of letting the Democrats win the election.
Contrary to what post-election defeatist fallout in the left wing would suggest, this country is not headed to the right. No, instead, the silent majority of 1992 resurfaced to rear its ugly head. Keep that in mind when you next sound off about your ultra-liberal stances at bars, weddings, and other social events. You see that guy that doesn’t talk when you go off on your latest political rant? That guy disagrees. He could be your coworker, your best friend, your neighbor, or your relative. When he hears you talk, it is very easy for him to be convinced to go vote out of fear of what “crazy” issues you stand for.
Libertarians, like me, are often chided for our objectivity and lack of moral or emotional appeal when it comes to political topics. Now you, as Democrats, get to face the same kind of harsh reality. By speaking your mind, you end up alienating those that actually care about the issues, and driving them to vote. If Democrats expect their candidate to win in 2008, they will have to bridge the gap of morality and shift ever so much further to the center; something they earnestly do not wish to ever do.