Maureen Dowd baffles me

I guess we're talking at cross purposes, FreeDuck, and apparently destined to remain doing so.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Next, your statement " ... The fact that 2/3 of the country was too damn lazy to get up offn they asses to vote fOR OR AGAINST ANYBODY is just lucky for Bush and unlucky for Kerry ... " is based on a critical factual error.

I'm still waiting to hear what the hell the critical factual error is with this statement.

0 Replies

Marym,

I think I understand the column Maureen Dowd penned here. She was commenting on the differences (views) in her own family. (The irony being that she IS Maureen Dowd )
Her brother's email tended (to my reading anyway) to smugly indicate only those who voted the Republican candidate were decent, moral people. That is not true.
There are persons I know who are vocally joyful in the Love of Jesus. They work hard to give to the poor, whether it be counseling, food, collections in difficult times, and baby-sitting free, even. They are SAD and very much against aborting a baby, they are praying people who are dedicated to their family. Yet they (and I), believe we cannot be truly 'moral' to our fellowman and be so legalistic as to deny freedoms, and force our will upon others .
It is my personal belief, that the 'family values and moralistic' preaching by the Bush clan is a ploy to get 'fundamental religious' persons to vote for them.
Time will prove this. Time that is pregnant with division.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Next, your statement " ... The fact that 2/3 of the country was too damn lazy to get up offn they asses to vote fOR OR AGAINST ANYBODY is just lucky for Bush and unlucky for Kerry ... " is based on a critical factual error.

I'm still waiting to hear what the hell the critical factual error is with this statement.

Dunno why I bother sometimes ... but if it makes easier for some to understand, only about 1/3 of The Eligible Electorate failed to vote, "for or against anybody", while 2/3 of The Eligible Electorate in fact did vote, somewhat fewer than half of whom - less than 1/3 of the available pool - voted to unseat The Incumbent. That is the whole, entire, plain, there-it-is point.

0 Replies

Aaah, you are right. But your point is still idiotic. Let's forget this 1/3 **** for the moment and just talk about the people who did vote. You are using the fact that Bush's 3% victory means that democrats just don't get it. I'm not even a democrat, but it bothers me that you smugly make this giant leaping assertion without anything to back it up.

Those people who didn't vote have nothing to do with it, because...well, because they didn't VOTE.

But it's your delusional hypothesis, so I guess you can do what you want.

GWB won by 3%. That is not a lot, no matter how much you manipulate your statistics to make them conform to your absurd preconceived notion.

0 Replies

"Talking about the people who did vote" is disingenuous, kicky. I freely acknowledge that 3 points is not a huge margin, but I point again to the fact that with the exception of Johnson, no Democrat since FDR has achieved a majority victory, and that with the exception of Clinton, no Post War Democratic Incumbent has been re-elected, while 3 Republicans have been and one re-elected Republican bequeathed his Party a third consecutive term. My "Point" is not that "My Guy Won", my point is that The Democratic Party itself and alone is responsible for its present fortune, and, apart from any other consideration, does not represent or have the support of anywhere near "Half The Nation".

If you choose to see that as absurd, that's your choice. I see it as the way things are. I also believe that The Democratic Party appears unable or unwilling to objectively recognize and effectively address the causality of its woes. I believe that bodes very ill for the future prospects of The Democratic Party.

I would much prefer The Electorate be offered a choice, but for a choice to be meaningful, to be attractive, that offered choice needs be viable, and reasonable to far more than a third of The Electorate. The Democratic Party has not exactly shined in that area here of late.

0 Replies

I agree with that last part, at least. I apologize for getting a little testy there, but it is frustrating to me to see what I perceive to be somebody champion one or the other of these completely corrupt parties, because in my opinion, they both leave a LOT to be desired.

0 Replies

We have already been over these numerical manipulations, timber -- I think nimh is the one who pretty definitively showed how silly it was.

timber wrote:

My "Point" is not that "My Guy Won", my point is that The Democratic Party itself and alone is responsible for its present fortune, and, apart from any other consideration, does not represent or have the support of anywhere near "Half The Nation".

Is 3% "anywhere near"?

0 Replies

Quote:

Those people who didn't vote have nothing to do with it, because...well, because they didn't VOTE.

This is as far as I got in reading the replies and then I had to read it twice. It just struck me as so funny...and well, true. So every time I read it, I chuckled even more Smile

There was an avatar that used to affect me that way Smile

The person no longer posts here, but every time I tried to read one of their posts, I'd be laughing so hard because of their avatar Smile

Maybe I'm just sleep deprived LOL.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

We have already been over these numerical manipulations, timber -- I think nimh is the one who pretty definitively showed how silly it was.

Dunno 'bout that exactly ... First, no "Number Manipulation" is goin' on here, and secondly, I think you'll find that while nimh and I frequently nitpick one another, we're pretty much in agreement when it comes to statistical analysis methodology and conclusions, even if he and I may not have the same attitude toward those conclusions. I might point as well to the scoffing and ridicule my confidence - and my explanations of the reasoning and methodology behind my confidence and conclusions - in a Republican Victory and Legislative pickup received over the year-plus runup to the election on these boards. Few believed me then. Similar comparison can be made regarding my view on the economic picture. My views may not please a lot of folks hereabouts ... but they work for me and they seem pretty well in accordance with The Way Things Are. Its not my fault some folks don't like The Way Things Are, and its not my fault that some folks who don't like The Way Things Are happen despite their preferrences to be not among the majority of The Nation as a polity ... by a longshot.

timber wrote:

My "Point" is not that "My Guy Won", my point is that The Democratic Party itself and alone is responsible for its present fortune, and, apart from any other consideration, does not represent or have the support of anywhere near "Half The Nation".

Then Soz wrote:

Is 3% "anywhere near"?

Who said it was? "Half The Nation" is an inaccurate and misleading characterization either way. One of the things I'm getting at is that it appears to me some folks have fixated on that "Half The Nation"/"Deep Divide" thing. It ain't there. That is the crux of my argument. I think holding to that notion is a major impediment to the improvement of The Democratic Party's prospects.

0 Replies

I'm saying that 3% is "anywhere near."

The number manipulation I'm talking about is when you say things like this:

Quote:

a statement oblivious to the reality that The President justifiably can and rightfully does draw confidence - and great political capital - from the doucumented, incontravertable, accomplished fact that more than 2/3 of the Nation was not swayed to actively oppose his re-election.

And more than 2/3 of the nation was not swayed to actively oppose Kerry's election, either. That means precious little.

There was a difference of 3% -- that's pretty paltry.

There's a deep divide. We know that roughly 1/3 the country went for Bush and roughly 1/3 went for Kerry. We know much less about the remaining 1/3, but my point is they cannot suddenly be swept under the Bush banner any more than they can be swept under the Kerry banner. What indicators there are -- polls, especially -- show that the 1/3 is itself roughly equally divided.

How is that not a deep divide?

0 Replies

Well, how 'bout if I allow as much as mebbe 1/3 of the population is off the deep end? :wink:

Seriously, I just don't perceive there to be anything like the "Deep Divide" some in opposition to The Current Administration promote. I see the determination to hold to the concept as denial ... evasion of proactively setting about to find and address systemic flaws within The Democratic Party, an avoidance mechanism which has long been a factor in the collective psyche of The Democratic Party, a factor which long has worked to the disadvantage of that party. What has happened to The Democratic Party has been brought about by The Democratic Party. Any "Divide" that exists is due to The Democratic Party moving itself away from The Mainstream. Thats what The Democratic Party has to come to grips with, get over, move beyond, and redress.

That's my perception ... popular or not.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Not surprised, FreeDuck.

Farmerman, first, I don't listen to Limbaugh ... as far as I'm concerned, a self-centered, self-promoting, egotistical, hyperbolic, rabble-rousing pompous ass is a self-centred, self promoting, egotistical, hyperbolic, rabble-rousing pompous ass regardless of political bent.

uh, timber, if i may... you forgot narcotics addict.

0 Replies

Some things I can overlook Laughing

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

So I get it now, Timber. You started this thread so that you could point out, once again, using Dowd as an example, how the entire left-leaning population still doesn't get it and how the majority in America thinks like her brother and when will the sore loser lefties get over it. And again with the election results. And again with how the left insults mainstream god-fearing Americans.

Your guy won. You get to have most things your way now. Enough already. I speak for myself and Maureen Dowd when I say, we get you "mainstream America". We're from you. We're your children grown up and moved on who made up our own minds when exposed to other ideas besides yours. We hear you loud and clear, we just don't agree with you. And the fact that your guy won the election isn't going to make us agree with you. In fact, if 98% of the population thought like you, whatever was left of us still wouldn't agree with you. So just be happy.

you tell 'em duck!

dammit. i don't care how many people came out to vote. more than in recent years for sure.

we can play the game until the cows come home, but the facts remain;

of those who did vote, 48% voted for kerry. 51% voted for bush. that's only a freakin' 3 point spread.

and bush supporters shouldn't puff up to much. with the democrats out of the way, the republican party has already begun to feed on it's own.

now that's real good for america.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Some things I can overlook

nuts. i try real hard to be pissed at you, but ya make me laff too much.

:wink:

0 Replies

I'm sorta amused by folks that get all wadded up over politics :wink:

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I'm sorta amused by folks that get all wadded up over politics :wink:

man, i am so trying to get back to that place. i'm a live and let live kinda guy by nature. but, some people's kids... um, um umm. Rolling Eyes

i still laugh when i think about that stupid steam shovel picture you posted. Laughing

0 Replies

A-glow wrote:

Marym,

I think I understand the column Maureen Dowd penned here. She was commenting on the differences (views) in her own family. (The irony being that she IS Maureen Dowd )
Her brother's email tended (to my reading anyway) to smugly indicate only those who voted the Republican candidate were decent, moral people. That is not true.

I think this is kind of the point I had in mind when I said it didn't matter how many people voted for Bush. It's not about that. It is about exactly what A-glow says. It is an indication of division in this country. The country has been and continues to be divided -- even within families -- and I don't think it's just those in opposition to the administration who believe that.

0 Replies

Freeduck - I respect your opinion that there's a deep divide in the country, but I just don't see it in everyday life. I think it was a slow newsday for Maureen and if she actually thought the divide was within the country, all she had to do is say so. I could care less about her family dynamics, but it did make for amusing reading.

There's a divide here on A2K for sure, but given some of the comments before the election, I think most of us more or less expected that. I don't think it's necessarily representative of the country as a whole.

It just cannot be lost on the liberals or Democrats here that there are huge problems their party needs to address. We can forget the fringe groups on both sides (the right-wing religious nuts and the left-wing loonies - such as those at DU) because they don't count in the larger picture.

The Democrats do well when they both run and govern from the center (think Clinton) and their election of Harry Reid as minority whip proves my point. He's a pro-life Mormon and even if he says he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve, he will admit it when asked.

Even Hillary, although maybe not pro-war, has come out strong as being pro-military. She will run in '08 and she knows Americans prefer a strong military. She also knows just who it is that SERVES in that military and she's not above ditching her past-pacificist views to get their vote, either.

Neither will she make abortion an issue (which actually wasn't an issue in THIS election). There was one small mention...something like "abortion should remain safe and legal" and that was on the very last page of the printed DNC platform available at their convention.

Sensible policies will always trump any "get out the vote" scenario. Democrats don't have a large enough base to win that way, and Democrats like Hillary and Harry Reid know it. The A2Kers on the left can amuse themselves with their "Religious Right/Contemporary Politics" threads all they want, but I just see it as a ridiculous waste of time (although it is funny).

0 Replies

Maureen Dowd baffles me

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know