I particpate on LiveJournal. A friend pass this along to me this evening. It comes from a leftist perspective, but I still think it's important and it applies to moderates as well.
"I've seen many angry posts this morning - and the best thing to come from that anger and shock is that I honestly think that the people that lost this election - are now actually as angry and peeved as they should have been going into August. The left in America had better get it's ass in gear if it ever hopes to win an election. The razor thin edge with which Bush won shows the grand canyon sized divide in American politics. Every gay man should get out and become involved in replacing legislators due up for election in 2006 with progressive voices - and start NOW. Every gay man should get out and work to have the time set aside to help propel the next progressive voice for the White House forward.
It doesn't count when you blog about supporting a candidate! That is CLEARLY not enough!
1. Did you do door knocking?
2. Did you do any WORK to make your candidate win?
3. Did you contribute financially?
4. Did you do ANY research on the candidates other than the (R) or the (D) next to thier names?
5. Did you get involved in the system if you lived in a state where you were facing a anti-marriage equality amendment - besides disagreeing with it?
6. Did you write letters to family in your own handwriting talking about the election?
It simply isn't enough to put a progressive candidate's sticker on your car. You MUST get out there and work. You MUST get involved. You cannot expect good will alone to propel your candidate or your issue into a successful campaign.
The right is so well organized in this country - from making gay marriage the issue that propelled conservatives to the polls - to working on specific races (Tom Daschle) to ensure defeat. The left and the progressive voice in America has to get the fuck with it. By 2008 - our America will be radicaly changed by this administration - and we need to be well organized to find a candidate that deserves my vote.
Kerry was not a good candidate - he was a weak debater - a Washington insider with decades of vascillating voting records - and just NOT the strongest progessive candidate.
I did not vote for Kerry - I voted against Bush.
Here's the bottom line: It's simply NOT enough to vote - you have to be an active participant.
The organizational power of conservatives in America gives us no choice.
Skip that episode of Friends in reruns.... and get involved.
Write letters - join organizations - activate your rights as an American - before someone figures out a way to take them from you."
Posted by Dennis at November 3, 2004 10:35 PMExcept for the fact, of course, that it was the anger that got a lot of the moderates and the lazier conservatives out to vote. I think the hard-line leftwingers were quite angry enough. Since 2000. As John Kerry says, "let the healing process begin."
Posted by: Socrateased at November 4, 2004 07:24 PMI think Kerry is a traitor because his actions both now and in 1971/72 caused our soldiers harm. Our soldiers dont ask to be deployed, they go based on orders.
Whether Nixon could prove him treasonous or not is besides the point. Speaking badly of the troops is not a legal definition of traitor, but it harms the troop morale and, in the case of Vietnam, caused them unjust humiliation. It also provides motivation for the enemy who see weaker support at home as an indication of effectiveness. My definition is met and I was the one in the voting booth, not Nixon.
Frankly, I doubt very much that anyone that could share a stage with Jane Fonda would be seen in a favorable light by very many Vietnam veterans.
You may be tired of hearing that Kerry was a bad candidate but he certainly was. The proof is simple, he lost.
I will admit that he did one thing good for America, he conceded rather than take this into the courts.
Posted by: mike at November 4, 2004 12:38 PMI'm not sure if we were robbed, though I know that many people have been talking about this issue of Diebold machines, so I'll not speak on it.
Here is where my problem lies... Kerry was NOT a traitor. Kerry WAS a good debater. I'm really tired of people claiming that Kerry was a bad candidate. I didn't think so. That is my opinion. I've said it a million times and I'll say it again, Nixon could prove NOTHING against Kerry, and so he sent an attack dog, O'Neill, after him. LEt me remind people on one thing about Kerry: there are many Vietnam verterans that supported what he did at the time. He spoke for them when no one else would. I suppose that MIke thinks that Operation Truth are traitors as well?
We were blindsided by the moral issues. While people are dying in Iraq, well, I guess that's just not enough of a moral issue to be concerned with. I've personally have never been so disgusted by my own country as I have been this past Election Day. Disgusted by gays and lesbians who voted for a man that wants them marginalized, and disgusted by Democrats who voted for a man who wants them marginalized out of American society.
Pathetic.
Posted by: TAE at November 4, 2004 07:24 AMsour grapes and conspiracy theories dont solve the real problem. the democrats put up a traitor for a candidate and there are a huge number of americans that vote in this country that would NEVER vote for someone that has hurt our troops.
the left has a huge problem, and its not that the right is organized. the big problem they have is that, as a party, they have no differentiator for most americans.
im not republican, christian, anti-abortion but the democrats gave me no reason to vote for their party.
Posted by: mike at November 4, 2004 06:42 AMOscar Wilde said, "The problem with socialism is that it takes to many evenings."
Posted by: David at November 4, 2004 01:45 AMCan you say Diebolt?
Has everyone forgotten that Diebolt owner promised to give Ohio to Bush in 2004?
Doesn't anyone wonder why at 4p Slate the only news media willing to do exit polls even after the courts said they could be done, explained how Bush couldn't get more than 212 without winning all the states he was behind in? Or that the percentages were so close in almost every race?
Why do we blame ourselves? Did we stand in record numbers sometimes for hours to vote for the incumbent?
Diebolt machines were first and still are ATMs. No problem with a receipt for them but can't be done for voting?
This election was rigged with black boxes. It was promised and delivered by a big contributor who owned the machines!
Why did Edwards insist they'd fight on, count every vote then have Kerry decide just hours later to not push the count?
Was he gotten to? Was he given an offer he couldn't refuse. Tit for Tat?
The man couldn't act indecently if his life depended on it. He bowed out gracefully like Gore 4 years later. Why? Because he couldn't prove the election in many states was fixed by black box machines and to imply the election was stolen would indeed send us into civil war.
Think about it. Has there ever been so many people on the ground, real people. Bush had his setup crowds and his rich people. Kerry had his 527 groups with millions giving a little money yet there were so many of us it added up. And, then what happened. Why was Zogby. MCLaughlin Group and so many of the pollsters who counted in the undecideds and 'not just the most likely voters' think it was going to be for Kerry.
They all hadn't the read it right or...had they forgotten about the diebolt machines?
Check out Diebolt just pop it in Google and read on.
We were all robbed.