Stupid Is As Stupid Does

[Jwaksman]

Well, here's a big reason that Kerry didn't want his records released before the Presidential Election:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/


Some highlights:


"During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences.

But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.

In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.

Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years.

The grade transcript, which Kerry has always declined to release, was included in his Navy record. During the campaign the Globe sought Kerry's naval records, but he refused to waive privacy restrictions for the full file. Late last month, Kerry gave the Navy permission to send the documents to the Globe.

Kerry appeared to be responding to critics who suspected that there might be damaging information in the file about his activities in Vietnam. The military and medical records, however, appear identical to what Kerry has already released. This marks the first time Kerry's grades have been publicly reported.

The transcript shows that Kerry's freshman-year average was 71. He scored a 61 in geology, a 63 and 68 in two history classes, and a 69 in political science. His top score was a 79, in another political science course. Another of his strongest efforts, a 77, came in French class."





With this, and rumors that Kerry wants to try to impeach President Bush, I think he's officially gone the Al Gore route of off-the-deep-end after losing a Presidential election... I think we can safely say that he will never elected President or Vice President.

[jersey_guy]

Of course that did not stop the liberal media from presenting him as an educated person. So many lieberals made a big fuss about Bush's grades, and now they have such embarassment on their hands. At least he scored high enough in Franch to replace Chirac as the next Frog in Chief.

[Zat0pek]

The Dem's did the same thing in '00. Gore was of course much smarter than Bush despite flunking out of divinity school and dropping out of law school. This from a guy that couldn't even win his home state of Tennessee.

I really hope they continue on this "you have to vote for us because we're smarter" tactic. It has obviously worked so well for them.

Repeat after me, Dems: If you want to capture the White House ever again, get off your psuedo-intellectual high horse, nominate a southern or midwestern governor, and go after blue collar, working-class families and their values again, just like you used to do before the ex-hippies and psuedo-intelligentsia took over the party. In other words, go back after all those people Reagan stole away in '80 and have never found their way back. Do that and you'll easily get 55% of the vote. It won't even be close.

But instead, they'll continue to do things like put Howard Dean in charge of the party and nominate someone from the northeast, then wonder why they lost again to someone so obviously inferior them.

[MoMo]

Franch?

Anyway, it looks to me like NEITHER one is qualified.

Let's impeach 'em both.

Two fer one.

[MoMo]

And zat, will you join me in hoping the repubs stop trying to scare us into voting for them with their irresponsible mushroom-cloud talk?

[Zat0pek]

And zat, will you join me in hoping the repubs stop trying to scare us into voting for them with their irresponsible mushroom-cloud talk?

I will if you'll answer this question for me: Do you honestly believe that if Al queda had the capacity to detonate a nuclear device in New York or D.C. that they wouldn't do it?

[MoMo]

I will if you'll answer this question:

Do you think they would have gotten one from Saddam -- who didn't have a real nuclear program?

If you say, it's at least possible, then should we also take down the Pakistani government, a possibly more likely source of nukes to maniacs?

[jersey_guy]

the Pakistani government, a possibly more likely source of nukes to maniacs?

What are you talking about? Musharraf is with us, not against us. He knows very well the moment he stops cooperating with the Americans, he might be replaced by a more pro-American leader.

[MoMo]

Musharraf is with us, but A.Q. Khan -- the brain behind the Pakistani bomb, and a free-lance proliferator extraordinaire -- was left on the loose by Musharraf until scandalously late in the game. Even now, he's under "house arrest," not made available to our guys for questioning, still really a national hero.
Don't be so sure we'd be able to count on another pro-American if Musharraf fell victim next time the assassins come near.
In any case, my original point is undeniable -- terrorists are a lot more likely to get a nuke from a Muslim country that HAS them than from one that only dreams about it.

[jersey_guy]

The Paki government will not give a nuke to any terrorists because they know it's very likely it will be used against Pakistan itself. There is a virtual civil war in Paki today between the government and Islamofacists, resulting in daily clashes and suicide bombings in mosques (with the Sunni-Shia conflict on top of it).

If any Muslim country delivers a nuke to Islamofascist barbarians, it will be Iran a few years down the road.

[gesser]

All this shows is...

He probably got too caught up in "college" his first year. Then he settled in and passed classes at one of the countries best institutions.





Has Kerry ever explicitly called W. a retarded person? Has he ever proclaimed himself to be the smartest man in the Capitol?

Yes, I wish both candidates were more book smart as well as street smart. However, that wasn't the case with either.

[MoMo]

And in a condition of "near civil war," you're still confident we can count on another pro-American leader emerging?

[exjersey1]

With this, and rumors that Kerry wants to try to impeach President Bush, I think he's officially gone the Al Gore route of off-the-deep-end after losing a Presidential election... I think we can safely say that he will never elected President or Vice President.


Can't speak for anyone else, but I really don't care about a candidate's GPA.

And the rumors (supposedly) are that the Democrats may try to impeach Bush. Kerry can't impeach: As a Senator, he would hear the case if the House voted to impeach Bush.

[jrun]

All Jwaskman's article proves is that if you ever attended Yale (or suchlike) in your life, you can be president irrespective of any actual merit.

.

[Sulus]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I really don't care about a candidate's GPA.

And the rumors (supposedly) are that the Democrats may try to impeach Bush. Kerry can't impeach: As a Senator, he would hear the case if the House voted to impeach Bush.

Does anyone have any links about these rumors? I've been stuck in the summer time warp lately and have sort of fallen out of the loop (i.e. the attentive public.)

[jersey_guy]

And in a condition of "near civil war," you're still confident we can count on another pro-American leader emerging?

The Paki military is loyal to Musharraf and has incentives to remain so (major military deals with the US).

[Jwaksman]

How can Democrats like exjersey and gesser possibly say now that they don't care about grades? Bush's grades at Yale were the backbone of all of the "Bush is an idiot" arguments in 2000 and 2004. It was taken for granted that Kerry was way smarter than Bush - remember all those "How can you vote for a C student!" arguments?? And now it turns out that Kerry's grades were worse than Bush's? Yeah, Kerry's worst grades were his freshman year, but same for Bush. Both partied too much freshman year and got better grades as their careers went on.


Also, at least Bush was man enough to admit that he was an immature party animal and alcoholic when he was young. I'd like to see Kerry admit to his, obvious, youthful mistakes.



Personally, I don't think either of them are stupid - both Kerry and Bush are very smart men. I didn't start this thread to argue that Bush is smarter than Kerry, because I don't think that's true. But I think that their intelligences are comparable, and close, and I hope that this puts to rest all of the Bush-is-an-idiot arguments...

[exjersey1]

How can Democrats like exjersey and gesser possibly say now that they don't care about grades?


I'm not attempting to speak for Gesser, but please provide some documentation where I have ever mentioned Bush's grades in any perspective, much less one having any bearing on my opinion of his ability to be President.

edit:
Besides, when did I become a Democrat? You decided a while back that I was a socialist?

[gesser]

How can Democrats like exjersey and gesser possibly say now that they don't care about grades?

Huh?

Yes, I wish both candidates were more book smart as well as street smart. However, that wasn't the case with either.

[Zat0pek]

I hope that this puts to rest all of the Bush-is-an-idiot arguments...

That won't happen until Bush gains the ability to put more than four properly pronounced words together in a row. Face it, the man couldn't speak his way out of a wet paper bag.

But speaking ability and intelligence are two different things. I know several brilliant, highly educated people that speak every bit as poorly as Bush, and I also know an extremely eloquent, articulate man that frankly has the IQ of the average turnip. Reagan was the "Great Communicator", and Dems still said he was an idiot (but they always say that about conservatives).

[mzungu]

I agree completely with Zat's first paragraph and partially with the second paragraph, except to add that Kerry's grades were somewhat better than Bush's after freshman year and that Bush's philosophy professor Paul Weiss believed that he hired someone to write his papers (Ted Kennedy apparently did this his freshman year at Harvard and was expelled before later returning; it was very common for the few poor students to fund their education in this way back then, according to an academic history I read). I do believe that Bush is not very intelligent because he is not only inarticulate, but also is less knowledgeable about political affairs relevant to the presidency than 95% of the Congress.

The part of the Kerry records that is NOT getting reported is that they show clearly that many of the Swift Boat group critical of Kerry last year ARE ON RECORD GIVING HIGH PRAISE TO KERRY BACK IN THE DAY. Kerry's full military records show that his military service was exemplary. No doubt it was the grades that kept Kerry from opening all his records during the campaign, but I think that the grades would have humanized Kerry a bit--and he needed it--and the military record would have exposed how false the smear campaign was.

"Paki" is a racial slur.

[Jwaksman]

I agree that the swift boat ads weren't fair. But that's how campaign commercials are on both sides. Frankly, all political campaign commercials piss me off - they're all full of half-truths.


But Bush got made fun of for his 77 average for so long, and still is. After freshman year, he was probably around an 80 or 81 for his last 3 years, and what could Kerry have been? 83? Not much higher. They still both got bad grades. They both only got into Yale because of coming from very rich and powerful families. And they were both lazy people who partied when they were young. But, frankly, most big politicians were like that... You think Gore wasn't that bad also? After the 2000 election it turned out that Gore's grades, just like Kerry's, were just as bad as Bush's.

[mzungu]

the story rightly corrects the perceived difference in their grades, but the swift boat story was not any normal bit of slander; it was hugely important because it was utterly false, not partially false, and it helped defeat the accurate perception that kerry had served this country bravely and honorably. swift boat guys sure praised kerry back during vietnam when there was no republican party nominee at stake. and the fact is that bush was lazy not only in his freshman year, but to the present day--i mean how is it possible to be so ignorant about policies after serving as president for four years? much of his time seems to be spent riding bikes in rock creek park and going running and going to photo ops at elementary schools. kerry and gore learned, bush seems not to have learned much.

[jersey_guy]

Wow, those Americans are so stupid because they keep electing lazy bastards into office while hard working intellectual elites like Gore and Kerry get no love. Now that Reagan was competely lazy and drove our country into ground, and so will Bush as evidenced by the GDP data.

[jersey_guy]

The Dem's did the same thing in '00. Gore was of course much smarter than Bush despite flunking out of divinity school and dropping out of law school. This from a guy that couldn't even win his home state of Tennessee.

I really hope they continue on this "you have to vote for us because we're smarter" tactic. It has obviously worked so well for them.

Repeat after me, Dems: If you want to capture the White House ever again, get off your psuedo-intellectual high horse

But instead, they'll continue to do things like put Howard Dean in charge of the party and nominate someone from the northeast, then wonder why they lost again to someone so obviously inferior them.

Talking to a wall.

the fact is that bush was lazy not only in his freshman year, but to the present day--i mean how is it possible to be so ignorant about policies after serving as president for four years? much of his time seems to be spent riding bikes in rock creek park and going running and going to photo ops at elementary schools. kerry and gore learned, bush seems not to have learned much.

Keep it up, you're doing so well.

[gesser]

Wow, those Americans are so stupid because they keep electing lazy bastards into office while hard working intellectual elites like Gore and Kerry get no love. Now that Reagan was competely lazy and drove our country into ground, and so will Bush as evidenced by the GDP data.

Talking to a wall.




There's not a huge majority here that's defending Kerry and saying he's some amazing collegiate scholar.

[Dyenimator]

GPA doesn't exactly measure how smart you are, it's an evaluation of your work ethic and how you interpret the teachings.

[jersey_guy]

Howard Dean just called Republicans a "white Christian party." It gets better by the day. Can't wait to hear what comes out of his mouth tomorrow.

[MoMo]

He's an idiot.

But do most people really equate the mainstream Democratic Party with Howard Dean? Rank-and-file Dems had nothing to do with choosing him.

He's just like Homer-Simpson-as-Cheerleader -- an over-the-top, mildly entertaining, moon-walking, blue-in-the-face caricature of the role.

[100% Ozone Safe]

i can't decide which party i dislike more. The republicans.... or the democrats??

[Zat0pek]

Howard Dean just called Republicans a "white Christian party." It gets better by the day. Can't wait to hear what comes out of his mouth tomorrow.

Some of us haven't forgotten that you worked on his campaign, j_g! ;)

[Zat0pek]

He's just like Homer-Simpson-as-Cheerleader -- an over-the-top, mildly entertaining, moon-walking, blue-in-the-face caricature of the role.

Nooooo, he's not. He's the freakin' party leader! Homer didn't make any decisions in the game; Dean does. HUUUUUGE difference. Please try another analogy.

[jersey_guy]

Here's something funny what he said when he was "elected" the DNC chairman:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050213-121441-4897r.htm

Mr. Dean said at a press conference after his acceptance speech that he would be embarking on a nationwide party-rebuilding crusade to reach out to pivotal parts of the electorate that the Democrats have been losing, including Catholics and evangelicals, whose support has been a key factor in the Republicans' victories, particularly in rural America.
"We are definitely going to do religious outreach. We're definitely going to reach out to the evangelical community," he said.
Acknowledging the Catholic Church's active role in speaking out against John Kerry's pro-choice stance, Mr. Dean said, "We have to remind Catholic Americans that the social mission of the Democratic Party is almost exactly the same as the social mission of the Catholic Church."

It's going pretty well, isn't it??

[jaygray]

The only non-idiots in politics are in the MoMo party.

"Viva La Liberte MoMoise"
- Jay Grayvara.

[TrackDaddy]

Although I am no dem or repub, I supported Bush's re-election. So without political motivation I must say...

There is no way that Bush's GPA could've possibly been enough fuel for people to question his intellect to the extent they have. His GPA/SAT were only used in an attempt to provide verification for that agenda.

The real truth is that literally hundreds of statements like the ones below were/are the real catalyst for the broad assumption that he is an idiot...

"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the constitution says. The constitution of the United States says we're all — you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America." —George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

[New York XC]

Howard Dean just called Republicans a "white Christian party." It gets better by the day. Can't wait to hear what comes out of his mouth tomorrow.

yeah, so? I don't understand why people are making a big deal about this comment. It's true. I'm a white christian who, while not a republican, is conservative and i'll be the first to tell you that the republican's are a white christian party. I thought this had been established years ago.

[Jwaksman]

It's a bit offensive since 45% of the largest majority (hispanics) voted Republican. I'm sure Democrats wouldn't find it too fun if they were called the "single woman" party, since that does make up the majority of their support. Or maybe we should call them the "special interest-pandering party"? Or maybe we should be a little more mature and respectful. You know, whatever works...

[MoMo]

The only non-idiots in politics are in the MoMo party.

"Viva La Liberte MoMoise"
- Jay Grayvara.

Yeah!!

If only the world would catch on to this so-well-kept secret!

We need to develop some MoMoMentum.

[MoMo]

Nooooo, he's not. He's the freakin' party leader! Homer didn't make any decisions in the game; Dean does. HUUUUUGE difference. Please try another analogy.

I'm sorry, I think that in the real world, the Democratic chairman is more figurehead than strategist. He's working with a big, fragmented, sprawling, many-headed beast -- a major political party -- full of disparate views, outsized egos and conflicting interests. He can't possibly singlehandedly lay down marching orders for the whole bunch. Let's be realistic. He is, as I say, a figurehead. Not a brilliant one, either, but just a figurehead.

[Jwaksman]

MoMo, it's really the opposite. Generally, party heads are guys who are absolute nobodys. Dean is one of the first party leaders to ever have been famous before hand. Even in this DNC election, his top competitors were mayors and ex-congressmen.


The DNC job is one of organizing, recruiting, fundraising, and message-giving. You run the organization. It's the opposite of a figurehead.

That's why I think Dean won't last too long in charge. Even though he's to the right of you and mzungu, he's still to the left of the average Democrat, and he doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut. And he's alienating a lot of Democrats. You don't see Republican Senators attacking Ken Mehlmen, or saying that he doesn't represent them, because he's doing fabulous work at getting the job done without the negative headlines. Dean is also alienating the big donors. He needs to remember that Republicans have dominated grassroots fundraising for decades, and that the Democratic Party has always needed the big multi-millionaire and corporate money. They simply cannot compete if he alienates those things.

[gesser]

It's a bit offensive since 45% of the largest majority (hispanics) voted Republican. I'm sure Democrats wouldn't find it too fun if they were called the "single woman" party, since that does make up the majority of their support. Or maybe we should call them the "special interest-pandering party"? Or maybe we should be a little more mature and respectful. You know, whatever works...

Well aren't most Hispanics (especially Cubans) of the Catholic faith? So Dean was 50% correct.

[gesser]

Although I am no dem or repub, I supported Bush's re-election. So without political motivation I must say...

There is no way that Bush's GPA could've possibly been enough fuel for people to question his intellect to the extent they have. His GPA/SAT were only used in an attempt to provide verification for that agenda.

The real truth is that literally hundreds of statements like the ones below were/are the real catalyst for the broad assumption that he is an idiot...

"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the constitution says. The constitution of the United States says we're all — you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America." —George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004


So why did you support Bush? I am curious to know.

[Jwaksman]

So why did you support Bush? I am curious to know.


Cause Bush was more likely to push his Christian morals on everyone than Kerry was.

[Zat0pek]

Well, according to the CIA Factbook, using numbers drawn from the Census, the U.S. is 77.1% white and 76% Christian (combining Protestants and Catholics).

So, it seems to me that what Dean just said was that the Republican Party is the party of the overwhelming mainstream majority in this country, and that the Democrats are the party of the fringe minority. Yeah, that's about right. ;)

[mzungu]

but if 3/4 of the population are white and 3/4 of the population are christian (and really he was probably referring and should have been referring to protestants, not catholics), then a smaller proportion of the population consists of white christians, maybe a little more than 50%, and since he was talking in context of conservative white christians responsible for much of Bush's explicit policies, we're talking about roughly 25% of the population. (Evangelical christians--bush's core group--has remained at about 1/4 of the population since 1900). In any case, I want my president to represent the whole population, not just the white christians.

[Jwaksman]

Well, would you prefer the politician who represents 48% of the population to the politician who represents 51% of the population?

[MoMo]

is that a trick question?

[mzungu]

52% protestant in 2001, down from 60% in 1990.

can't find religious affiliation by race, but if christian percentage is same among whites, then white christians would be 9/16 of the population.

here for amusement are state by state divorce rates from 1994. looks like the hardcore communist states have the lowest divorce rates, while the red meat real americans in the south and republican west have the highest divorce rates.
1994 Numbers and Rates for Each State

Rank State Number Rate
---------------------------------------

United States 1,191,000 4.6

1 Massachusetts 14,530 2.4
2 Connecticut 9,095 2.8
3 New Jersey 23,899 3.0
4 Rhode Island 3,231 3.2
5 New York 59,195 3.3
Pennsylvania 40,040 3.3
7 Wisconsin 17,478 3.4
North Dakota 2,201 3.4
9 Maryland 17,439 3.5
10 Minnesota 16,217 3.6
Louisiana *** 3.6
12 Illinois 43,398 3.7
13 District of 2,244 3.9
Columbia
Iowa 10,930 3.9
15 Nebraska 6,547 4.0
Vermont 2,316 4.0
17 Michigan 38,727 4.1
18 South Dakota 3,022 4.2
South Carolina 15,301 4.2
Hawaii 4,979 4.2
21 California *** 4.3
22 Maine 5,433 4.4
New Hampshire 5,041 4.4
24 Ohio 49,968 4.5
25 Virginia 30,016 4.6
26 Kansas 12,093 4.7
Utah 8,999 4.7
28 Delaware 3,385 4.8
29 Montana 4,153 4.9
30 Missouri 26,324 5.0
West Virginia 9,179 5.0
32 North Carolina 36,292 5.1
Colorado 18,795 5.1
34 Georgia 37,001 5.2
35 Oregon 16,307 5.3
36 Texas 99,073 5.4
37 Alaska 3,354 5.5
38 Washington 29,976 5.6
39 Mississippi 15,212 5.7
40 Kentucky 22,211 5.8
Arizona 23,725 5.8
42 Florida 82,963 5.9
43 New Mexico 9,882 6.0
44 Idaho 7,075 6.2
Alabama 26,116 6.2
46 Indiana *** 6.4
47 Wyoming 3,071 6.5
48 Tennessee 34,167 6.6
49 Oklahoma 21,855 6.7
50 Arkansas 17,458 7.1
51 Nevada 13,061 9.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol 43, No. 13, October 23, 1995, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics. Note: All statistics are for 1994 except: California (1987), Indiana (1987), and Louisiana (1983). Rates are per 1,000 population in specified area. All data are by State of occurrence rather than by State of residence.

[mzungu]

Well, would you prefer the politician who represents 48% of the population to the politician who represents 51% of the population?

the point was that zat used statistics incorrectly to suggest that "the overwhelming majority" of the population are white christians. that is not the case. and, i would rather have the politician with half a million more votes nationally and a small majority in Florida according to the AP count.

[Jwaksman]

Excellent point. Clearly, the President should be a libertarian.

[KenA55]

Yeah, to hell with democracy and popularity contests.
:D

I'm not entirely kidding when I say that. It sure doesn't necessarily bring the cream to the top, does it.

[MoMo]

It doesn't, although it's surprising how often the overall good sense of the American people somehow manages to shine through.

[mzungu]

Although I am no dem or repub, I supported Bush's re-election. So without political motivation I must say...

There is no way that Bush's GPA could've possibly been enough fuel for people to question his intellect to the extent they have. His GPA/SAT were only used in an attempt to provide verification for that agenda.

The real truth is that literally hundreds of statements like the ones below were/are the real catalyst for the broad assumption that he is an idiot...

"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the constitution says. The constitution of the United States says we're all — you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America." —George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

I have to add to this Slavoj Zizek's hilarious sidebar in an extremely abstract book on Deleuze:
"A Comic Hegelian Interlude: Dumb and Dumber"
"How many people noticed that the Hegelian dialectics is unconsciously practiced by Dan Quayle and George W. Bush? We thought we had seen it all with Quayle a decade ago. however, in comparison with Bush, Quayle emerges as a rather intelligent person." ... [first example:] "Keep good relations with the Grecians."
Zizek categorizes many of Bush's slips as "what the French call lapalissades, the tautological statings of the obvious attributed to ... Monsieur la Palice, like 'One hour before his death, Monsieur la Palice was still fully alive.' or 'Why don't we build cities in the countryside where the air is much cleaner?'

The latter "comes pretty close to a concise formulation of the Republican Party's ecological policy, rendered perfectly by Bush's truism:
'I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.'"

Other examples from Bush and Quayle:
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
Quayle: "When I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in Los Angeles, my answer has been direct and simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame." (There is, of course, an implicit conservative political logic in this tautology, that is, this quote relies on an implicit negation: don't look for the 'deeper' causes in social circumstances, it is the immediate perpetrators who bear the full responsibility"

More Quayle:
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

Bush's "slips in which a conceptual opposition is raised to the level of dialectical self-relating:"
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend towards more freedom and democracy--but that could change."

Quayle:
"The future will be better tomorrow."

Bush:
"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected."

Quayle:
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."

Quayle unwittingly providing "the most succinct characterization of Bush":
"People that are really weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."

Bush:
"This is a world that is much more uncertain than the past. In the past we were certain, we were certain it was us versus the Russians in the past. We were certain, and therefore we had huge nuclear arsenals aimed at each other to keep peace. ... [E]ven though it's an uncertain world, we're certain of some things. ... We're certain there are madmen in this world, and there's terror, and there's missiles and I'm certain of this too."

In place of "love your neighbor like yourself," Bush says:
"We must all hear the universal call to like your neighbor just like you like to be liked yourself."

Just as Heidegger says that "the essence of technology is nothing technological," Bush says:
""This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve."

For Zizek, "This could be translated into: 'The essence of preservation has nothing to do with the ontic preservation of our physical resources. The essence of preservation is the preservation of the essence of our society itself--and this is what the president of the USA has to do, even if, at the vulgar ontic level, he allows the destruction of more natural resources than in the entire previous history of the USA.'"

[Sebrle]

here for amusement are state by state divorce rates from 1994. looks like the hardcore communist states have the lowest divorce rates, while the red meat real americans in the south and republican west have the highest divorce rates.


1994?, this stat would be politically relevant if the Massachusetts population were 100% blue and Nevada 100% red instead of 60/40 (under Reagan every state was "red meat real american"), then you have the fact that Nevada has 11x the marriage rate as Mass yet the marriage FAILURE % is 1/4th that of Mass (10.5%/42.4%)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf

[Zat0pek]

the point was that zat used statistics incorrectly to suggest that "the overwhelming majority" of the population are white christians.

Mzungu, for future reference, the little winky face at the end of the post means I'm not being serious. Any freshman stats course could blow holes in my comment; I was just funnin' Dean.

[MoMo]

It IS kind of funny, when you think about it, that that one little "white Christians" comment provoked such an explosion of statistics-supported snarling here.

[mzungu]

I missed the wink, sorry. well, time to go run in central park, but let me just cite this recent poll before i go. don't blame the messenger:
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.


Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.


Overall, more than half -- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency. A somewhat larger majority -- 56 percent -- disapproved of Republicans in Congress, and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.


There were signs, however, that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees and Social Security. Six in 10 respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems; of those, 67 percent blamed the president and Republicans while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats. For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.


The surge in violence in Iraq since the new government took control -- 80 U.S. troops and more than 700 Iraqis died in May alone amid a rash of bombings -- has been accompanied by rising gloom about the overall fight against terrorists. By 50 percent to 49 percent, Americans approved of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism, down from 56 percent approval in April, equaling the lowest rating he has earned on the issue that has consistently been his core strength with the public.


The dissipating support for the Iraq war is of potential military concern, because, as Marine Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis wrote in a note to his troops as he led them back into Iraq in February 2004, "our friendly strategic center of gravity is the will of the American people."


Some authorities on war and public opinion said the figures indicate that pessimism about the war in Iraq has reached a dangerous level. "It appears that Americans are coming to the realization that the war in Iraq is not being won and may well prove unwinnable," said retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor at Boston University. "That conclusion bleeds over into a conviction that it may not have been necessary in the first place."


That is the view of poll respondent Margaret Boudreaux, 63, a casino worker living in Oakdale, La. "I don't think it's going well -- there's too much killing," she said, worrying that the Iraq invasion could move more enemies to violence. "I think that some of the people, if they could, would get revenge for what we've done."


"You hear a lot about Saddam but nothing about Osama bin Laden. I don't think he [Bush] does enough to deal with the problems of terrorism. . . . He's done a lot of talking, but we haven't seen real changes," said another poll respondent, Kathy Goyette, 54, a San Diego nurse. "People are getting through airport security with things that are unbelievable. . . . I don't think he learned from 9/11."


While Bush has shelved his routine speeches about terrorism, and Congress has turned to domestic issues, fear of terrorism has receded from the public consciousness. Only 12 percent called it the nation's top priority, behind the economy, Iraq, health care and Social Security.


The drop in Bush's approval ratings on fighting terrorism came disproportionately from political independents. In March, 63 percent of independents approved of Bush's job combating terrorism. By April this had fallen to 54 percent. And in this weekend's survey, 40 percent gave him good marks.


The poll suggests that views on the Iraq war's impact also remain highly partisan. Three in four Republicans said the Iraq invasion has boosted domestic security, while three in four Democrats said it has not. Political independents lean negative on the issue: About six in 10 said the war has not made Americans safer.


Overall, Bush's 48 percent job approval rating was essentially unchanged from the 47 percent rating he received in a late-April poll. And there was growth in the proportion of people who said the economy was doing well: 44 percent, up from 37 percent in April.


But the public took a generally gloomy view of the White House and Congress. A plurality said Bush is doing worse in his second term than in his first, and 58 percent said he is not concentrating on the things that matter most to them -- the worst showing Bush has had in this measure in Post-ABC polls.


Congress fared no better. The proportion of the public disapproving of the legislative body was at its highest since late 1998, during President Bill Clinton's impeachment. More people said they would look at a candidate other than their sitting representative than at any point in nearly eight years. For the first time since April 2001, Democrats (46 percent) were trusted more than Republicans (41 percent) to cope with the nation's problems. But at the same time, favorability ratings for the Democratic Party, at 51 percent, tied their all-time low.


A total of 1,002 randomly selected adults were interviewed by telephone June 2 to 5 for this Post-ABC News poll. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.

The poll also found disapproval or division when it came to Bush's performance on several other recent, high-profile issues. One-third of those surveyed approved of the way Bush is handling federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, while 55 percent disapproved. The public was divided on the president's handling of judicial nominations, with 46 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. And half said they were opposed to drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a proposal backed by Bush and being debated in Congress.

But the most striking trend identified by the survey was the spreading impatience over Iraq and national security matters. While six in 10 were confident that the United States was not violating the rights of detainees at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Americans were more skeptical that the government is protecting the rights of U.S. citizens at home. Only half said Americans' rights were being adequately protected, down from 69 percent in September 2003.

James Burk, a sociologist at Texas A&M University, said disillusionment about Iraq may have grown to the point that policymakers will have difficulty reversing it. "People all across the country know people in Iraq [so] there's a direct connection to the war," he said. Burk sees a "disjuncture" between upbeat administration rhetoric and realities the public perceives. "These data suggest we will soon reach the point, if we haven't yet reached the point, where that kind of language will seem too out of touch."

Polling director Richard Morin contributed to this report.

[mzungu]

1994?, this stat would be politically relevant if the Massachusetts population were 100% blue and Nevada 100% red instead of 60/40 (under Reagan every state was "red meat real american"), then you have the fact that Nevada has 11x the marriage rate as Mass yet the marriage FAILURE % is 1/4th that of Mass (10.5%/42.4%)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf

sebrle, i used 1994 because that's the most recent i could find--the divorce rates for the u.s. have been gradually falling since 1981 or so, but state by state has no real difference.

but seriously, you're using NEVADA as an example of marriage vs. divorce rates????? think about that for a second. how could nevada possibly have 11x the marriage rate than massachusetts? um ... oh yeah, nevada is the most common place in the entire country to go out of state for a wedding. of course most of those vegas and reno weddings don't stay in vegas or reno. they go home and get divorced in their own state. you can do better than this. mass. is #1 in lowest divorce rate.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, these polls with the majority of Americans thinking that the Iraq war wasn't worth it, or that the majority of Americans think we shouldn't have gone, or whatever, have been going on for more than year now. I remember in 2004 you'd post one of those polls every week, gloating about how there was no way that Bush could win re-election. These poll articles love to use scary words like "ominous", especially if it's the NY Times, LA Times or Wa Post, to make the reader think that the straw has finally come that broke the camel's back.



But until Bush's party start actually losing seats anywhere then none of this means anything. The Democrats have a good chance to pick up a governor's chair or two in 2006, that's the only positive thing that they have going right now.

[mzungu]

obviously, the iraq war wasn't the major issue in the election, but public perceptions concerning bush's issues and the iraq war have been steadily worsening since then. the terrorism/safety issue, plus the distraction issues like religious faith, were the big issues. the polls are important away from elections because they can either serve as an accelerant or a decelerant (if there is such a thing) for the presidential agenda in congress. for example, i'd be quite surprised if there is any real privatization of social security now, given its overwhelming unpopularity in the polls. but bush'll still push most of his agenda through congress because of his strong, loyal majorities in the house and senate.

[Jwaksman]

Absolutely national defense was the key issue in the election. That's precisely why Bush won. Kerry simply could not convince the public that he would do everything he could do defend the country, like Bush was able to.


As for Social Security, I'm glad that you had no numerical evidence to back up your "given its overwhelming unpopularity in the polls" comment, because I'm glad that it's not true. In fact, polls show quite the opposite, that polls that correctly ask the question show clear majority support for private accounts. The only polls that show a majority of americans against private accounts are ones with strange wording (such as "Bush's private account plan", because anytime you attach Bush's name to anything, it immediately loses all popularity among Democrats).


Some recent polls, on the issue: A Zogby poll of likely voters between May 23rd and 25th (and remember, Zogby is a Democratic Party pollster) showed that 52% of Americans support "proposals to give younger workers the choice of privately investing a portion of their Social Security taxes through personal accounts?", with 40% disapproving. An ABC News/Wa Post poll from June 2-5 of American adults found that 48% support "a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market" while 49% oppose it. As I said, Bush's name poisons everything, as the same poll found only 34% approval (and 62% disapproval) of Bush's handling of social security.


mzungu, you forgot the rule that you are required to backup all assertions that you make with actual data from unbiased sources. Most of your assertions are wrong, so you can save us all a lot of debate if you do the research yourself first.

[TrackDaddy]

So why did you support Bush? I am curious to know.Mostly his socially conservative agenda.

Sup gesser

[TrackDaddy]

Well, according to the CIA Factbook, using numbers drawn from the Census, the U.S. is 77.1% white and 76% Christian (combining Protestants and Catholics).

So, it seems to me that what Dean just said was that the Republican Party is the party of the overwhelming mainstream majority in this country, and that the Democrats are the party of the fringe minority. Yeah, that's about right. ;)That's almost true.

But you didn't mention gender.

The 77% includes white women.

What percentage of them are repubs, I wonder?

BTW...I just rec'd this book as a gift from a friend. It will be a while before I get around to reading it though.

http://www.wxan.net/images/bk%20what%20color.jpg

[TrackDaddy]

I have to add to this Slavoj Zizek's hilarious sidebar in an extremely abstract book on Deleuze:
"A Comic Hegelian Interlude: Dumb and Dumber"
"How many people noticed that the Hegelian dialectics is unconsciously practiced by Dan Quayle and George W. Bush? We thought we had seen it all with Quayle a decade ago. however, in comparison with Bush, Quayle emerges as a rather intelligent person." ... [first example:] "Keep good relations with the Grecians."
Zizek categorizes many of Bush's slips as "what the French call lapalissades, the tautological statings of the obvious attributed to ... Monsieur la Palice, like 'One hour before his death, Monsieur la Palice was still fully alive.' or 'Why don't we build cities in the countryside where the air is much cleaner?'

The latter "comes pretty close to a concise formulation of the Republican Party's ecological policy, rendered perfectly by Bush's truism:
'I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.'"

Other examples from Bush and Quayle:
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
Quayle: "When I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in Los Angeles, my answer has been direct and simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame." (There is, of course, an implicit conservative political logic in this tautology, that is, this quote relies on an implicit negation: don't look for the 'deeper' causes in social circumstances, it is the immediate perpetrators who bear the full responsibility"

More Quayle:
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

Bush's "slips in which a conceptual opposition is raised to the level of dialectical self-relating:"
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend towards more freedom and democracy--but that could change."

Quayle:
"The future will be better tomorrow."

Bush:
"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected."

Quayle:
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."

Quayle unwittingly providing "the most succinct characterization of Bush":
"People that are really weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."

Bush:
"This is a world that is much more uncertain than the past. In the past we were certain, we were certain it was us versus the Russians in the past. We were certain, and therefore we had huge nuclear arsenals aimed at each other to keep peace. ... [E]ven though it's an uncertain world, we're certain of some things. ... We're certain there are madmen in this world, and there's terror, and there's missiles and I'm certain of this too."

In place of "love your neighbor like yourself," Bush says:
"We must all hear the universal call to like your neighbor just like you like to be liked yourself."

Just as Heidegger says that "the essence of technology is nothing technological," Bush says:
""This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve."

For Zizek, "This could be translated into: 'The essence of preservation has nothing to do with the ontic preservation of our physical resources. The essence of preservation is the preservation of the essence of our society itself--and this is what the president of the USA has to do, even if, at the vulgar ontic level, he allows the destruction of more natural resources than in the entire previous history of the USA.'"LOL

Hilarious! :)

[TrackDaddy]

It IS kind of funny, when you think about it, that that one little "white Christians" comment provoked such an explosion of statistics-supported snarling here.LOL...I noticed that too.

Not sure what the fuss is about...some of my best friends are white Christians. ;)

I agree with Layla (and others) when she says the dems should dump Dean.

I watched an interview recently and seriously...he's sort of a strange dude.

Somethings going on with that cat.

[TrackDaddy]

I missed the wink, sorry. well, time to go run in central park, but let me just cite this recent poll before i go. don't blame the messenger:I think the war stinks too. I remember predicting in the Lounge that no WMD would be found and that we would ultimately end up there for many years.

Kreskin aint got nothing on yo' boy. ;)

Do you thank Rudy that you can run in Central Park unmolested?

Seriously, when I vacationed in NY in 2000, I stayed in the Grand (Central Station) Hyatt at 42nd and Park.

Easy top 5 of my all time vacations...and I felt as safe in Manhattan as I do here in north Texas.

That was about 11 months before 911. I have a picture of my daughter and I on the Empire State Building with the WTC Towers in the background. The pic gives us the chills for some reason.

People have always been pessimistic about the war but when I look at that picture I think about how we were truly violated. Not to mention the Pentagon.

I think some of the frustration in the poll comes not just from the war, but from Bin Laden making a mockery of US intelligence and the empty feeling that justice has yet to be served.

No one really cares that Saddam is being tried for crimes against his own peeps.

And if we're hit with a significant terrorist attack WHILE WE ARE STILL OCCUPYING IRAQ and losing troops...

It will be BAD NEWS FOR BUSH...to put it mildly.

[Jwaksman]

Yeah, I think Dean's work is being counterproductive. He thinks he's still running for President, and that all he has to do is rile up the base. But what a lot of moderate Democrats have been complaining about is that while Dean has almost exclusively talked to core demcratic groups (feminist groups, unions, etc.), Republican Chairman Ken Mehlmen has spent his time trying to woo moderate Democrats (like socially conservative blacks and hispanics). I can't find the quote right now, but I remember some leading Democrat complaining about how the Republicans were "playing in our sandbox".


The key, as party chairman, is to rile up your base AND woo moderates at the same time. That means that you still say hateful things about the other side, but you do them quietly, like by putting them on your website. For example, when Terry McAuliffe was in charge of the Dems, all you had to do was go to the DNC Homepage and every article was unfairly bashing Republicans. But the key was that they weren't making assertions that were really out there. They would say things like, "Republicans Pass Another 'No Lobbyist Left Behind' Bill". That's the kind of red meat that gets party loyalists fired up but won't offend moderate Democrats. Besides, most moderates wouldn't be going to the DNC website anyway. But then when McAuliffe is in public, and on tv, he'd tone down his comments a little.


Dean is becoming a huge liability for Democratic candidates in Florida, Nebraska, West Virginia, Minnesota and Washington, to new a few important senate races. 2006 could potentially be a Democratic debacle in the Senate races, which would probably spell the end of Dean's term as party chairman.



Edit: These Dean quotes just keep on coming - two new ones today. First, from Barack Obama:

"As somebody who is a Christian myself, I don’t like it when people use religion to divide, whether that is Republican or Democrat. I think in terms of his role as party spokesman, [Dean] probably needs to be a little more careful and I suspect that is a message he is going to be getting from a number of us... We are at a time in our country’s history that inclusive language is better than exclusive language.”

And John McCain:

"“Howard Dean is the gift that keeps on giving.”

[MoMo]

I still wonder how much Dean's excesses might ever translate into any electoral difference.

I'd guess the effect would be EXTREMELY minimal; people vote on local issues, and the nation is already so deeply divided it's hard to imagine some borderline Democrat saying, "My god, this man is nuts. I'm switching parties."

Still, if he keeps it up, there may be an uprising among elected Dem officials, considering the unusually large number who have already gone public against him.

Btw, jwack, it's Mehlman, not Mehlmen. (You could look it up.)

[Zat0pek]

All true, MoMo, but what Dean is doing is just underscoring and highlighting the almost-unimaginable political incompetence of the Democrats as a national party. And that makes it just that much easier for the Republicans to continue to dominate on the national level. The RNC has already raised twice as much money, and Dean is just going to perpetuate the gap.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, it honestly hacks me off to see the Dems be so wildly incompetent at basic politics. In a two party system, one has to keep the other in check, and right now the Dems simply aren't able to do that to the extent they should. And until they realize what they are doing wrong, I don't think its going to change.

[MoMo]

Zat, I can't really argue with you there --- as much as I like to do so... ;)

[Jwaksman]

And, MoMo, you know that red state democrats will do all that they can to remind voters of what Dean says. You can just see the commercials in Minnesota, Florida, Nebraska, etc.: They'll have a few of Dean's best comments back-to-back, quickly, then a voice-over announcer saying, "Does this man speak for Minnesotans/Nebraskans/whatever-ans? If not, then vote for ____"


I mean, Democrats do the same thing. In deep blue states, Democrats run Bush quotes and then try to associate the Republican candidates with him. But the fact that Democrats had a real big devil to rally around while Republicans didn't was what helped Democrats nearly equal Republicans in fundraising prowess. If Republicans start fearing a Hillary Presidency, backed by a Chairman Howard, I can't fathom the incredible sums of money that Republicans will start raising.

[Zat0pek]

If Republicans start fearing a Hillary Presidency, backed by a Chairman Howard, I can't fathom the incredible sums of money that Republicans will start raising.

FEAR Dean as the head of the DNC and Hillary as the candidate? Try. . .pray for. :D

[MoMo]

It's like I said -- fear is the Republicans' best weapon. (winky face)

[Jwaksman]

In unrelated news (but not worth its own thread), a new Merrill Lynch report today finds that there are now more millionaires in North America than in Europe. Worldwide, there were 600,000 new millionaires last year, up to 8.3 million total (7.3% growth). Growth was actually highest in Africa (13.7%), but that's deceptive because of how few there are (less than 100,000 total). North America had the next highest growth, at 9.7% - to 2.7 Million total. Europe only had 4.1% growth - to 2.6 Million total. The total net worth of North American millionaires also passed Europe - now up to $9.3 Trillion (10.2% growth), vs. $8.9 Trillion (3.7% growth).


By individual countries, the largest growth in millionaires among countries of any decent size was Singapore, with 22.4% growth, followed by South Africa at 21.6%. With 37,000 total millionaires, South Africa seems to make up the bulk of that continent. The US had 9.9% growth, to 2.5 Million of them, which was higher than the best European Nation, the UK at 8.9% growth (418,000 total). The report concludes that American growth will continue to more than double European growth, with the divide just increasing.


Merrill Lynch reports that:


"The high growth witnessed in the United States in 2004 is a
record in recent history—the country last saw a higher growth rate in
1997 and before that in 1983. Last year’s above-average growth also coincided with a peak in worldwide economic recovery.
Interest rates in the United States remained stable and low throughout 2004.The low cost of money drove spending on fixed
investments, which rose 10.2%, compared to a 5.1% increase in 2003.
In 2004,HNWIs in the United States continued to benefit from the Tax Relief Act of 2001.This legislation raised the
threshold of financial assets exempt from estate taxes from US$1million in 2002 - 2003 to US$1.5 million in 2004 -2005.
Moreover, this protection will steadily increase through the end of the decade; at which point, without congressional action, the
act’s sunset provision will go into effect, returning the tax-exempt level to US$675,000."


The report continues:

"2004 witnessed the expansion of the European Union, with 10 new countries admitted as members.While GDP growth
varied from country to country,Germany, France and Italy, which together account for over half of the European Union’s
economic output, remained in an economic trough.
Germany has been plagued by employment problems for the past few years: Rigid labor regulations that make companies
cautious about hiring, coupled with high social insurance benefits, have raised unemployment to unsustainable levels. By March
2005, 5.2 million people were out of work there—the highest number of unemployed citizens since the end ofWorld War II.
These labor problems were compounded further by low workforce productivity.According to Lucas Papademos,Vice President
of the European Central Bank, workforce productivity in Germany stood at about 80% of the United States’ level; in Italy, the
productivity rate was 77%. Jean-Philippe Cotis,Chief Economist of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,
captured the problem succinctly:“Economic rates in the core EuroZone will lag behind those in Asia,Central and
Eastern Europe, and the United States until France,Germany and Italy create and sustain more jobs, particularly for workers
under 25 and over 55.”




Now I know that mzungu and momo will find a way to twist this into evidence about how our economic policies help the rich out, but I think there is something else to see here. The key to these stats are new millionaires. These aren't CEO's making $50 Million a year, these are upper-middle class families making $125,000 a year and saving up their money. It's the beauty of the American system, where it is so easy to become so rich.

[Zat0pek]

Zat, I can't really argue with you there --- as much as I like to do so... ;)

Somewhere in the Democratic party there has to be a Truman-esque figure. Someone that is tough on defense. Someone from the midwest or south (or at least ANYPLACE other than the Northeast). Someone with the blue-collar, common-man aura, that is honest and consistent but not perfect. Someone that runs on a bread-and-butter platform appealing to working class families: social security, livable wages, TRADITIONAL values, education funding, strong military/national defense, etc.

Dean is not the one to help find that guy. And the Dems MUST find that guy to have a prayer. Find him, and there isn't a single Republican that could beat him. Not one.

[MoMo]

Somewhere in the Democratic party there has to be a Truman-esque figure. Someone that is tough on defense. Someone from the midwest or south (or at least ANYPLACE other than the Northeast). Someone with the blue-collar, common-man aura, that is honest and consistent but not perfect. Someone that runs on a bread-and-butter platform appealing to working class families: social security, livable wages, TRADITIONAL values, education funding, strong military/national defense, etc.

Dean is not the one to help find that guy. And the Dems MUST find that guy to have a prayer. Find him, and there isn't a single Republican that could beat him. Not one.

It seemed for awhile like Edwards might be that guy. But once he was on the ticket with Kerry, he just seemed to dissolve into the landscape.

[Kalaby]

Somewhere in the Democratic party there has to be a Truman-esque figure. Someone that is tough on defense. Someone from the midwest or south (or at least ANYPLACE other than the Northeast). Someone with the blue-collar, common-man aura, that is honest and consistent but not perfect. Someone that runs on a bread-and-butter platform appealing to working class families: social security, livable wages, TRADITIONAL values, education funding, strong military/national defense, etc.

Dean is not the one to help find that guy. And the Dems MUST find that guy to have a prayer. Find him, and there isn't a single Republican that could beat him. Not one.

Agreed for the most part, but I think if McCain decided to run, he'd be very formidable regardless of who his Democratic opponent would be.

[Zat0pek]

It seemed for awhile like Edwards might be that guy. But once he was on the ticket with Kerry, he just seemed to dissolve into the landscape.

Waaaay too much into class warfare. "The guy" has to be someone that talks about "we", not "us" and "them", like Edwards did with his "two Americas" theme. Reagan did it. Clinton did it. "The guy" will have to do it, too. The whole class warfare, "two Americas" thing is too negative. Rule #1: You don't win the Presidency being negative. Think Reagan's "shining city on a hill", Bush 41's "thousand points of light" and Clinton's "man from Hope." Those are all uniting; Edwards' "two Americas" is divisive. Dean is continuing on that path. It won't work. Stop talking about your opponent; as long as you do that, THEY define the terms of the game. Start talking about your own ideas and vision. Anger about your opponent is not nearly as effective as inspiration and hope about you and your ideas.

Until the Democrats can start offering their own upbeat, positive vision and stop setting themselves up as sitting ducks by baiting Republican attacks, or simply calling Republican ideas stupid without viable, positive alternatives, they're toast.

[exjersey1]

Somewhere in the Democratic party there has to be a Truman-esque figure. Someone that is tough on defense. Someone from the midwest or south (or at least ANYPLACE other than the Northeast). Someone with the blue-collar, common-man aura, that is honest and consistent but not perfect. Someone that runs on a bread-and-butter platform appealing to working class families: social security, livable wages, TRADITIONAL values, education funding, strong military/national defense, etc.

Dean is not the one to help find that guy. And the Dems MUST find that guy to have a prayer. Find him, and there isn't a single Republican that could beat him. Not one.


Someone with charisma.

And someone who will actually speak his/her mind, unlike Kerry's non-campaign.

[Sebrle]

you can do better than this. mass. is #1 in lowest divorce rate.

Because they have the second lowest marriage rate in the country, not surprisingly the number two on your list: Connecticut has the lowest marriage rate in the country, yet their marriage failure rate is almost 60%!! 20 points above the national average, you’re actually proud of this? This is a textbook instance of using selective facts to endorse a false premise.

I suppose next you’ll be telling us liberals make better barley farmers because New York City has a lower rate of combine accidents than Conrad, Montana. :cool:

[Sebrle]

Somewhere in the Democratic party there has to be a Truman-esque figure. Someone that is tough on defense. Someone from the midwest or south (or at least ANYPLACE other than the Northeast). Someone with the blue-collar, common-man aura, that is honest and consistent but not perfect. Someone that runs on a bread-and-butter platform appealing to working class families: social security, livable wages, TRADITIONAL values, education funding, strong military/national defense, etc.

Dean is not the one to help find that guy. And the Dems MUST find that guy to have a prayer. Find him, and there isn't a single Republican that could beat him. Not one.

If not for early campaign stumbles Wesley Clark/John Edwards would have been a strong ticket.

[Zat0pek]

Because they have the second lowest marriage rate in the country, not surprisingly the number two on your list: Connecticut has the lowest marriage rate in the country, yet their marriage failure rate is almost 60%!! 20 points above the national average, you’re actually proud of this? This is a textbook instance of using selective facts to prove a false premise.

Damn, you beat me to it. I was going to check marriage rates because I had a strong hunch that marriage rates were much lower.

[Jwaksman]

Because they have the second lowest marriage rate in the country, not surprisingly the number two on your list: Connecticut has the lowest marriage rate in the country, yet their marriage failure rate is almost 60%!! 20 points above the national average, you’re actually proud of this? This is a textbook instance of using selective facts to prove a false premise.

I suppose next you’ll be telling us liberals make better barley farmers because New York City has a lower rate of combine accidents than Conrad, Montana. :cool:



Hahaha, that's great. Way to call out mzungu for his continual use of selective facts to come to much larger conclusions :D

[jrun]

It's the beauty of the American system, where it is so easy to become so rich.

LOL

[Dyenimator]

It's the beauty of the American system, where it is so easy to become so rich.

For you, Ivy League boy.

[mzungu]

zat0pek, would you vote for that candidate?

regarding marriages, which is worse, hyping the marriage rate in nevada as representative of a more republican state, or posting only the divorce rate?

the fact is that most states have similar marriage rates and the divorce rates go up as you go south and west. that's just a fact. if marriage was such a healthy institution in the south and west (not including the west coast), and marriage and religion are supposed to be the cure for all social ills, as republican propaganda states, then why do these states lead the nation in divorce rates, not to mention child abuse, incest, illiteracy, and lowest college education rates?

[mzungu]

I was forgetting poverty and murder.

[Zat0pek]

For you, Ivy League boy.

Millionaires typically don't come from Ivy League institutions. They are far more likely to have been "C" students at state universities. Again, check out the demographic research in The Millionaire Next Door.

[Zat0pek]

zat0pek, would you vote for that candidate?

I might. It would depend on who he was running against, and some other specific issues I didn't raise in my thumbnail profile. I break party rank once in while, but I haven't for some time simply because the Democrats haven't been able to field a viable candidate in years. Dukakis? Massachusetts uber-lib. Gore? Such a poor candidate he couldn't even win his own home state; never found his own message. Kerry? Another Massachussets lib who also never found his own message.

[mzungu]

you voted for dukakis, right?

[Zat0pek]

you voted for dukakis, right?

I was young, stupid, in love with a social worker and drunk. Note the absence of a smiley face.

[MoMo]

you voted drunk?

is that legal?

(notice the implied smiley face)

[Zat0pek]

you voted drunk?

is that legal?

I thought that was how all Democrats voted. ;)

[mzungu]

that's how I voted in the primaries of 1990, or rather, I showed up drunk at my friend's precinct and I was sober by the time I found my own precinct and voted.

[Zat0pek]

that's how I voted in the primaries of 1990, or rather, I showed up drunk at my friend's precinct and I was sober by the time I found my own precinct and voted.

Thus providing further anecdotal evidence to my belief that all Democrats vote whilst in that state. :D

[Jwaksman]

For you, Ivy League boy.



Keep saying that, and you will never be rich. I'll bet you that 98% of the world's millionaires did not go to an Ivy League school. And I'll also bet you that 98% of the people who are ignorant enough to believe that only connected people get rich will never become rich.



I think you and KenA should start Pessimists Anonymous.

[KenA55]

Haha, that's the first time anybody ever called me that.

[Zat0pek]

Keep saying that, and you will never be rich. I'll bet you that 98% of the world's millionaires did not go to an Ivy League school. And I'll also bet you that 98% of the people who are ignorant enough to believe that only connected people get rich will never become rich.

Open the link, click on the book cover, then use the "next page" arrow in the lower right of the book to page forward several pages to get to the "Profile of a Millionaire" summary in the introduction. Again, an outstanding book on this subject.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671015206/qid=1118344882/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-1119623-7688916

[KenA55]

Looks like a good book. Comes as no surprise to me that the people who naturally accumulate and hold on to wealth are those who are tightfisted with their money. It's absolutely unbelievable to me, some of the modest-income people who have to have that new SUV or the place on the lake or whatever, despite the payments that are going to keep them drained and unable to put anything significant away. Stormclouds develop and it all washes away.

We have a lot of workgroups here who manufacture reasons to work weekends regularly and suck up some overtime. Drives me nuts, most of this could be done within the normal 40 hr. weekday schedule. I suggested, during the last budget trim, that we tighten the belt drastically on this and maybe even put hourly workgroups on a 36 hour schedule, four nines basically, to avoid the axe falling on a few heads. You wouldn't believe the number of guys who were queasy about that suggestion and privately told me that they couldn't possibly get by with such a cut in annual pay.

Good God, sell some of the crap off and free yourself from it.

[Sebrle]

the fact is that most states have similar marriage rates and the divorce rates go up as you go south and west. that's just a fact.

It is?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/SEBRLE/marriage.bmp

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf

[leighpeas]

Keep saying that, and you will never be rich. I'll bet you that 98% of the world's millionaires did not go to an Ivy League school. And I'll also bet you that 98% of the people who are ignorant enough to believe that only connected people get rich will never become rich.
i volunteer to be an experiment! i won't go to an ivy league school, and i'll be rich in my thirties.

[TrackDaddy]

i volunteer to be an experiment! i won't go to an ivy league school, and i'll be rich in my thirties.Sup Leigh

How've you been?

After you're rich, then what?

[leighpeas]

Sup Leigh

How've you been?

After you're rich, then what?
Hey! I've been great. I think after I'm rich, I'll buy America.

[Kalaby]

Hey! I've been great. I think after I'm rich, I'll buy America.


Keep thinking big...afterall Manhattan only cost Peter Minuet 24 bucks ;)

[mzungu]

It is?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/SEBRLE/marriage.bmp

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf

yes, divorce rate (which is per population), not the ratio of divorces to marriages. why is it justified to focus on this? because a lot higher percentage of the population in southern states gets divorced. divorce runs rampant in those states. it's true that in SOME of them, marriage rates are also higher, but it's clear that they have no major block to divorce, despite their higher conservative religious ties.

[mzungu]

Thus providing further anecdotal evidence to my belief that all Democrats vote whilst in that state. :D

do you mean the state of california? i was sober by the time i voted. but in any case, i'm not embarrassed of the political judgments i arrived at in my youth. they were right then and they are right now.