• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is it possible that they really don't understand why John Kerry lost?

Hey so doctor I heard you were surprised I'm still in High School. That's funny! :p
 
Actualy some Democrats do get it... The Election was stolen... Hail Bush!
Thanks to Diebold you no longer have a vote.
 
doctor1 said:
Sorry for this rant, but when I woke up this morning, my clock/radio was playing ABC News on WBAP. I like WBAP, but I cringe when I hear ABC's so-called news. The news story that really got me to thinking stated that the Democrats couldn't understand why they lost. I find that hard to believe. Is it possible that they really don't understand why John Kerry lost?

Personally, I like to think of voting for President as if I were hiring somebody for a job... a very important job. Because it is an important job, I'd want the best person for that position. Ideally, I'd want somebody to do that job with my full confidence that they would always do what was in the best interest of what I have made them responsible for. I'd have such confidence in them, that they wouldn't need to ask me if This post is good and has excellent points.d of the job that they were doing for about four years.

I think that the Democrats really missed it on all of these points, and more. First of all, did John Kerry best represent what his party believed in? Does John Kerry represent anything? Outside of saying that he'd do everything different than the way the President Bush did, you never really got a sense of what he really would've done. He always professed that he had a plan, but never laid out any details. In fact, he said "I have a plan" so much, that if Martin Luther King were alive, he'd sue John Kerry for plagiarism.

The Democrats spent so much effort to make George W. Bush look bad, but they never really spent any effort to make you like John Kerry. I suspect that if the Democrats had pursued the same strategy, but put up "Stew Pedd" (Thanks Sean Hannity) instead of John Kerry, the results would have been the same. Their candidate and his surrogates were more harmful than good to their campaign. If it weren't for the efforts that they tried to make John Kerry more appealing, and the people that he surrounded himself with telling us what they really think of us, John Kerry might have stood a better chance of winning. In other words, if John Kerry had gone into hiding, refused all interviews, and forbade anyone to speak on his behalf, the Democrats might have one.

Why do I say this? The last few days, it got scary for me. It was a close race, but only because most of the potential Democrat voters couldn't be swayed from what their party was telling them. That is just a scary thought. That many people unable to see things for what they really were. That many people willing to throw away all that we truly hold dear as Americans, just to get some "power"? Apparently so. Now that is a scary thought!

Luckily for us, the liberals by definition are so vasilating in their search for their own core beliefs, that they might not be able to present a good candidate for a long time. A party that thinks they need to re-invent their candidates half-way through each election needs to step back and re-invent themselves.

I honestly don't care whether my President does "guy things" or not. I do care whether my President believes strongly about something that is good, and is willing to take a hit politically while they do the right thing.

The Democrats and their biased partners in the media keep stripping away any credibility they might have had with the general public. They are becoming as irrelevant as the UN, and for the same reasons. They profess to believe in an ideal, until it is no longer convenient for them.

Keep it up guys. It may look like you are making gains, but the folks that are lying to the general public about the general acceptance of your polocies are also lying to you about how well you are doing. Folks like Senator Miller from Geogia know what I am saying is true. I'm hoping you'll catch on too.
Click to expand...

SORRY......FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES YOU TO BE 16 YEARS OLD......CHECK BACK IN 3 YEARS.
 
Kerry lost because......

He was a liar, he supported and actively worked to violate your right to keep and bear arms, he was a shameless opportunist with a faked military record, and he was a worthless liberal pile of whale dung who pandered to the radical left including homosexuals, big union party bosses and Radfeminazis.
 
Why did John Kerry Lose? I'll give you one good reason; he spouted a lot of complaints but provided absolutley zero solutions to the problems. Whenever someone asked him how he intended to fix a problem he'd ramble off about how Bush messed things up or start talking about another problem. A man with no solutions is never elected president. Besides..he looks like Lurch from the Adam's family :lol:
 
I know I'll get flamed for this, but Kerry lost for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the prejudiced whites of the Southern red states.

If you'll forgive me for using a terrible term, the Southern Red Necks believe the GOP will not be as likely to waste money on minority programs.

The truth hurts.

They mistakenly believe the republicans will give them smaller and less intrusive government. Even though the exact opposite is always true...government grows larger and more intrusive under this president...can anyone deny this?

Of course, the South won't believe this, because the republicans are so adept at saying this is something only liberals do.

It was not Bush's record that won him the election. It was the "bush brand of politics."

A brand of politics that does not hold to the highest standards.

Of course, Kerry screwed up, too. I won't deny that. Everyone talks about Kerry not getting his message across, yet Bush's campaign message was vague, at best. Who knew what Bush stood for, except for 'Mom and apple pie?'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom