On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:55:40 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:

In article <41963f7d.6388666@news.gvtc.com>,

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:47:15 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:

How do other atheists feel about the election?

I bet Bush isn't as keen on the idea as he was a couple of years ago.

We might also have better relations with Europe.

And he might have successfully prevailed on some of those European
countries to get them to sacrifice their soldiers in place of
ours--good for us, bad for them, and bad for fairness. Bush's
election will make it easier for them to walk away and leave us to
sort out the mess we made, and I see that as a good thing. The price
for our arrogance, recklessness, and military adventurism should fall
principally on us if we are to have our best chance of learning why
such approaches to foreign policy are stupid, costly, and dangerous.

Domestically, I don't know how much he could have accomplished with a
very partisan Republican Congress. I think that we would be back to
gridlock.

Looking at that swarm of hornets over in the middle East, I have
little confidence there would have been no domestic terrorist attacks
during Kerry's term.

If there had been even one, do you think the
Republicans would have:

a) called for everyone to rally around the president the way most
Democrats did after 9/11?

or

b) savaged Kerry for being soft on terror, started impeachement
investigations, and trumpeted their "I told you so's" everywhere?

Even if the attack had come just a few days after Kerry took office, I
think they would still have made out that it was Kerry's fault because
he 'just projects the sort of weakness that invites terrorism'.

I remember that after the '64 election, many people were saying that the
Republicans were dead. They reorganized and came back in '68 and won the
White House. 1964 was a much bigger defeat for them than it was for us
this time. Next time we need to find a better candidate and better party
leadership. We need someone who can outRove Karl Rove.

I could do without the dirty tricks, but it would be nice to have
someone who knows how to connect to the Democratic base the way Rove
knows how to connect to the Republican base.

If the Democrats can't or won't do it, it's time to start thinking third
party.

That's how I feel.Which is why I think instant runoff voting is a
critically important reform. If the stranglehold the DLC has on the
Democratic party cannot be broken, then the third party route will be
the only way around them, but it will be very difficult to replace a
major party without instant runoff voting.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:55:40 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:

In article <41963f7d.6388666@news.gvtc.com>,

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:47:15 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:

How do other atheists feel about the election?

<...>

In the first place, my values were largely defeated by the Democratic
party leadership itself, when they engineered the defeat of the
popular candidate to obtain the nomination of a stooge more to their
liking. To the degree this defeat contributes to discrediting the
Democratic Leadership Council, I only see that as a good thing.

The last few times out, the Democrats ran lousy campaigns. That I must
admit.

http://www.ourfuture.org/onmessage/borosage/borosage_jan13_03.cfm
http://www.progressive.org/nich1000.htm
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Nader_DLC.htm

<...>

If Kerry had won, I don't think that there would have been a great
change in foreign policy regarding Iraq.

He promised major escalation in both troop numbers and funding.

However, I don't believe that he would be interested in starting any new
wars.

I bet Bush isn't as keen on the idea as he was a couple of years ago.

We might also have better relations with Europe.

And he might have successfully prevailed on some of those European
countries to get them to sacrifice their soldiers in place of
ours--good for us, bad for them, and bad for fairness. Bush's
election will make it easier for them to walk away and leave us to
sort out the mess we made, and I see that as a good thing. The price
for our arrogance, recklessness, and military adventurism should fall
principally on us if we are to have our best chance of learning why
such approaches to foreign policy are stupid, costly, and dangerous.

Domestically, I don't know how much he could have accomplished with a
very partisan Republican Congress. I think that we would be back to
gridlock.

Looking at that swarm of hornets over in the middle East, I have
little confidence there would have been no domestic terrorist attacks
during Kerry's term. If there had been even one, do you think the
Republican's would have:

a) called for everyone to rally around the president the way most
Democrats did after 9/11?

or

b) savaged Kerry for being soft on terror, started impeachement
investigations, and trumpeted their "I told you so's" everywhere?

Even if the attack had come just a few days after Kerry took office, I
think they would still have made out that it was Kerry's fault because
he 'just projects the sort of weakness that invites terrorism'.

<...>

Millions of Americans last week voted to ban gay marriage, claimed
"moral values" as their top concern and returned born-again Christian
George W. Bush to the White House for a second term.

Now this is the reason that I voted for Kerry, and if the election were
to be held again today, I would do the same. Bush is a captive of the
religious right, Kerry is not. With Kerry, we wouldn't have to worry
about a Supreme Court stacked with fundy judges. His cabinet members
wouldn't need a stamp of approval from the religious right. On the minus
side, in one of his last interviews, he did indicate that he was in
favor of 'faith based initiatives'. However, on the whole, as an atheist
and a progressive, I think that I would be happier with Kerry than Bush.

I voted Kerry even though I knew Texas would be a landslide for Bush,
and I would do it again if the election had to be held over. And
solely comparing Kerry to Bush, there is no question that I'd rather
have Kerry. But all through the runup to the election, I worried that
a Kerry win would be premature. The Left would have fallen into their
own "Mission Accomplished" mentality, dusted off their hands and
complacently walked away at the very time a Bush defeat was energizing
the Right. The Left would not have been strong enough, organized
enough, and motivated enough to back Kerry up when the going got
tough, and I think the going would have been a lot tougher for Kerry
than it was for Clinton.

On the other hand, if Bush continues to be the screw-up he's always
been, if the Democratic party can re-align, reconnect to its base, and
quit pandering to Southern Dixiecrats and lobbyists, and if we can put
up a people's candidate who has the popularity of, say, an Obama in
08, I think there's a good chance my long term values would be better
served by that scenario than they would have by a weak and crippled
Kerry administration as a prelude to a staggering defeat in 08.

I remember that after the '64 election, many people were saying that the
Republicans were dead. They reorganized and came back in '68 and won the
White House. 1964 was a much bigger defeat for them than it was for us
this time. Next time we need to find a better candidate and better party
leadership. We need someone who can outRove Karl Rove.

I could do without the dirty tricks, but it would be nice to have
someone who knows how to connect to the Democratic base the way Rove
knows how to connect to the Republican base.

If the Democrats can't or won't do it, it's time to start thinking third
party.

That's how I feel. Which is why I think instant runoff voting is a
critically important reform. If the stranglehold the DLC has on the
Democratic party cannot be broken, then the third party route will be
the only way around them, but it will be very difficult to replace a
major party without instant runoff voting.

Kronk

johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:<jhachm-095C41.22554015112004@news.giganews.com>...

In article <41963f7d.6388666@news.gvtc.com>,

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:47:15 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:

How do other atheists feel about the election?

The first thing I feel is annoyed--partly with the fact I'm going to
have the see that smug smirk for another four years, but also with
myself for feeling a few days of unwarranted optimism at the end
there. I also feel a bit fatigued to think how much work it is going
to take to undo the damage this administration is doing.

However, there are a number of reasons I don't feel crushed by the
outcome of this election.

In the first place, my values were largely defeated by the Democratic
party leadership itself, when they engineered the defeat of the
popular candidate to obtain the nomination of a stooge more to their
liking. To the degree this defeat contributes to discrediting the
Democratic Leadership Council, I only see that as a good thing.

The last few times out, the Democrats ran lousy campaigns. That I must
admit.

And though the Bush win was disappointing, I have no delusions that a
Kerry win would have been enormously better. Regarding Iraq, Kerry's
plan was basically the Bush plan, except he would have tried to outdo
Bush in the quantity of troops and money he would throw at it. Kerry
may have fancied himself another JFK, but his Iraq strategy was
classic LBJ--with no better prospects of success. The only real
difference was that Kerry promised to do everything he could to bring
in those countries who are sympathetic to American liberalism, and
have them share in our burden of blood and coin, and increase their
chances of experiencing terrorism. It would have been to the
discredit of the left if Kerry failed to bring them in, and it would
have been unfair to those friendly countries if Kerry had succeeded in
bringing them in.

And politically, Kerry would have handed a victory to the right if he
had somehow managed to make the Bush plan work; whereas if he failed,
he would have saddled the Democratic party with that failure for many
years to come. So his approach was heads they win, tails we lose.

Same with education--which was Kerry's catch-all answer to job loss
and declining wages and benefits. His biggest education plan was to
take Bush's stupid, corrupt, and failed No Child Left Behind policy
and pump tons of money into it.

If Kerry had won, it would have been by a very slim margin--probably
losing the popular vote even if he got the electoral vote. Imagine
Clinton, except with a bad economy, a wartime quagmire, much greater
risk of a terrorist attack, none of Clinton's powers of communication
or persuasion, and an even more hostile congress. A slim win this
time would very likely have been the perfect setup for a clobbering
defeat in 2008--maybe at the hands of Dub again, or another Bush.

And Kerry has had two notable executive positions--one heading up the
committee investigating POW-MIA's, where it appears Kerry abused his
power, destroyed documents he promised he would make public, and
cleared the way for lucrative positions for friends and family; and
the other as the guy ultimately in charge of his own totally inept
campaign. Neither example inspires confidence that he would have made
a good executive in chief.

As it is, Bush has all the power, but also all the responsibility.
For probably the first time in his life, it falls to him to clean up
his own mess. He has clearly defined the goal state in Iraq as a
free, democratic, peaceful nation; he chose the plan; he has every
resource a commander could ask for; and he characterizes the
opposition as a ragged handful of malcontents in a country that really
regards us as their liberators. He has set a very high bar for
himself, and there's no one else he can blame if he doesn't clear it.

Bush also has some whopping expensive programs he is going to push
for, and has also pledged to reduce the deficit, and this in an
economy that is just barely sputtering along despite the huge deficits
that are being run up to fuel it. And Bush has represented himself as
the great shield against any domestic terrorist attacks. Now he gets
four years with a friendly congress and, theoretically, majority
support to show how well he delivers on all these promises. He
couldn't ask for a better opportunity to show the merits of his
approach, but he's also put himself in a situation where he can't
afford to fail in any of these big objectives. This should be
interesting to watch.

If Kerry had won, I don't think that there would have been a great
change in foreign policy regarding Iraq. However, I don't believe that
he would be interested in starting any new wars. We might also have
better relations with Europe.

Domestically, I don't know how much he could have accomplished with a
very partisan Republican Congress. I think that we would be back to
gridlock.

<...>

Millions of Americans last week voted to ban gay marriage, claimed
"moral values" as their top concern and returned born-again Christian
George W. Bush to the White House for a second term.

Now this is the reason that I voted for Kerry, and if the election were
to be held again today, I would do the same. Bush is a captive of the
religious right, Kerry is not. With Kerry, we wouldn't have to worry
about a Supreme Court stacked with fundy judges. His cabinet members
wouldn't need a stamp of approval from the religious right. On the minus
side, in one of his last interviews, he did indicate that he was in
favor of 'faith based initiatives'. However, on the whole, as an atheist
and a progressive, I think that I would be happier with Kerry than Bush.

In the election aftermath, local atheists say they're feeling more
marginalized than ever.

Yes. As are gays, and scientists, and feminists, and
environmentalists, and civil libertarians, and so on. We are each
being marginalized, but together we are being marginalized into a very
large voting block. And while Bush slugs it out with the Iraq
tar-baby, and pushes his nutty agenda at home, that gives us the time
and motivation to organize, and also to push for real election reform,
including open source voting machines with real paper trails, and,
ideally, instant runoff voting, at least in the Democratic primaries.

So I'd say one more thing I feel is energized. With a zero candidate
we had little enthusiasm for, we still came in just barely behind. We
only need to shift a few percent to tip the see-saw our way. I see
nothing to despair about here. Yes, we didn't get our quick, lucky,
and probably premature, win. That's no reason to give up and run
away. That's a reason to redouble, get our act together, and do this
right the next time.

I remember that after the '64 election, many people were saying that the
Republicans were dead. They reorganized and came back in '68 and won the
White House. 1964 was a much bigger defeat for them than it was for us
this time. Next time we need to find a better candidate and better party
leadership. We need someone who can outRove Karl Rove.

If the Democrats can't or won't do it, it's time to start thinking third
party.

Yeah, but not for the Presidential race. I think a third party is
best relegated to local races for a few years until it grows some.
Otherwise it would just be a spoiler as usual. And any third party
*we start would put the Republicans back in the White House.

I was thinking about calling it the "Conservative" party. Since the
Republicans can be shown to be completely non-conservative, and I want
to conserve our finances, our constitution and our civil rights, it
fits. Another good name might be the "Truth" party. Again, because
it should make policy based upon facts and not fantasy ideas with no
research behind them.

Want to go halfies?

jwk

johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:<jhachm-095C41.22554015112004@news.giganews.com>...

How do other atheists feel about the election?

The first thing I feel is annoyed--partly with the fact I'm going to
have the see that smug smirk for another four years, but also with

Yup. Amazingly annoying.

If Kerry had won, it would have been by a very slim margin--probably
losing the popular vote even if he got the electoral vote. Imagine
Clinton, except with a bad economy, a wartime quagmire, much greater
risk of a terrorist attack, none of Clinton's powers of communication
or persuasion, and an even more hostile congress. A slim win this
time would very likely have been the perfect setup for a clobbering
defeat in 2008--maybe at the hands of Dub again, or another Bush.

A lot can happen in four years, and incumbants allways have the
advantage. If it had been Kerry in 2000 instead of Gore, you can guess
that it would have turned out much different.

If Kerry had won, I don't think that there would have been a great
change in foreign policy regarding Iraq. However, I don't believe that
he would be interested in starting any new wars. We might also have
better relations with Europe.

We certainly would have better relations with the rest of the world.
The Bush administration is being incredibly naive about the importance
of international relations and we will pay the price in trade
negotiations, military objectives, and just about anything else where
we have to work with real powers.

Domestically, I don't know how much he could have accomplished with a
very partisan Republican Congress. I think that we would be back to
gridlock.

Which is a bad thing how? Unless you're fond of large government
spending programs, gridlock reduces government spending and
rationalizes the budget, as we saw with a republican congress under
Clinton. As is Bush hasn't seen a spending program he didn't like.

I remember that after the '64 election, many people were saying that the
Republicans were dead. They reorganized and came back in '68 and won the
White House. 1964 was a much bigger defeat for them than it was for us
this time. Next time we need to find a better candidate and better party
leadership. We need someone who can outRove Karl Rove.

Certainly the democrats will start doing that, in fact are doing it
now. Great for the democrats, not so great for democracy.

If the Democrats can't or won't do it, it's time to start thinking third
party.

There is no room for third parties in the US election system;
DuVerger's law is analagous to a prisoner's delima in this regard. You
get only two parties. If you don't like them, pick one and start
working on the inside to change one.