Why John Kerry lost the election

[Isiah Schwartz]

First a little background information. I live and attend collage in New York state. When the election was over I noticed that a large number of the people I attended school with were completely shocked and actually subscribed to the belief that the election was rigged, despite what the exit and Gallup polls showed. They just couldn’t get it through their heads that they had lost , and the few that did didn’t understand why, well I did some thinking and I believe I might have an answer.
John Kerry was election was pioneered by people who have no issue that the average American cares about. No one wants to vote for a person who is running on the slogan “I am not the other guy, I am different, vote for me.” No president in history has one by not being the other guy, and no president ever will.
Now lets go through Kerry’s main issue. The first issue is the war in Iraq. Now I will not bog everyone here down by mentioning the numerous contradictions he had on the war, but instead will put out what overall message was given. The message was that I will not be as militant on the war as Bush. Every time in American history when a country attacked America’s sphere of influence we responded by outward aggression and often unilaterally. Never in our history did we retreat within our borders and appease the enemy. In 1812 we engaged England (the world naval power) at sea because it was sinking our ships, in 1860 we invaded the south, In the 1900`s we attack the Spanish in Latin America, in 1942 we attacked the Japanese after they hit us, and in the 1950`s to 1980`s we fought communism wherever it surfaced. The fact is even through our country more then any other always had the option of entrenching ourselves we have never done so, but in actually fact we have risen and destroyed every power that has attacked us, at home and abroad. What makes the Liberals in this country believe they can change that. Are they aware that they are probably not perceived as well meaning pacifists, but instead are seen as cowards and appeasers?

iNTERESTING....

[gmc]

posted by Isiah Schwartz

In 1812 we engaged England (the world naval power) at sea because it was sinking our ships, in 1860 we invaded the south, In the 1900`s we attack the Spanish in Latin America

Interesting perspective, so you invaded the south, was that not a civil war?

[BabyRider]

Originally Posted by gmc

posted by Isiah Schwartz


Interesting perspective, so you invaded the south, was that not a civil war?

Yes, it was. What's your point?

Isaiah, I would say you've got a pretty good perspective on this, and I'd add that whenever an election is lost, the ones who supported that party will ALWAYS say it was rigged. Not everyone can win, that's why there's an election. And you can take the numbers from any poll anywhere about anything and skew them to show what you want them to show.
I'd also have to say that Kerry's position was VERY hurt when he tried to use his "service" record and it came back and bit him on the a$$. I especially appreciated your very last comment. Very good!

[lynny]

I agree he tried to use his "service" record and it came bact to haunt him , as it should have , if you've read the book by the swift vets you know he's not a great man at all. Also your question about what liberals can or can't see . This was the first election I voted in despite being in my mid 30's . (Shame on me!) I voted because I was afraid the public wouldn't see the truth only what the left wanted them to see. Hollywood and the media seem so left I really was afraid the regular people out in America weren't hearing all that I was, I think the same can be said for alot of the new voters.

[Jiperly]

Originally Posted by Isiah Schwartz

In 1812 we engaged England (the world naval power) at sea because it was sinking our ships

Well, they moreso drafted Americans into the British Navy, calling them deserters of the British Navy- not many ships were sunk. The War of 1812 was seen more as a Manifest Destiny- that They had fought for Canada in the Seven Years War some 50 years prior, and that it is the American Destiny to rule over the entire contitinent of North America. If merely sinking your ships was all it took for war, then America would have gone to war against naploean years before England- but instead, they made the Louisanna purchase. Sadly, the President following Former President Jefferson did not have as such a level head, and made the invasion one of his poltical goals. Former President Madison was known as the first warhawk President, and his delusions of grandeur, the american arrogance("Capturing Canada would be a mere matter of marching",Former President Thomas Jefferson), and lust for greater power sent many Americans and Canadians to their deaths for no purpose, as the war ended in a stalemate(ironically the complete opposite of the message you're trying to get accross- that America does not "back down"- something they obviously did in the War of 1812)

Originally Posted by Isiah Schwartz

and in the 1950`s to 1980`s we fought communism wherever it surfaced.

But America backed down in Veitnam and the UN backed down in Korea- the two main wars of the Cold War. How can you contend that America does not retreat, but in half of the examples you gave America did, in fact, retreat or give in to the demands of their enemies?

Originally Posted by Isiah Schwartz

we have risen and destroyed every power that has attacked us, at home and abroad.

England attacked you in the Revoltutionary War and the War of 1812- and they were never destoryed. In fact, in the War of 1812, the English got as far as burning down the White House- when the troops invaded it, they even found the Presidents Dinner was still on the table he left in such a hurry.

Veitnese rebels attacked American troops many times throughout the years, and they were not destoryed in the end- their communist regieme still remains to this day- the same applies to North Korea- An UN lead American forces actually backed down by the threats of other countries(China)

Originally Posted by Isiah Schwartz

What makes the Liberals in this country believe they can change that. Are they aware that they are probably not perceived as well meaning pacifists, but instead are seen as cowards and appeasers?

I think its because you are using revisionist histories- not factual. America is a mighty strong nation, but that doesn't make it infalible or invincable. A wise country would pick their battles- and Iraq should have been choosen more carefully.

[gmc]

posted by babyrider

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmc
posted by Isiah Schwartz


Interesting perspective, so you invaded the south, was that not a civil war?

[quote]Yes, it was. What's your point?

Was following this earlier paragraph

Every time in American history when a country attacked America’s sphere of influence we responded by outward aggression and often unilaterally.

Implied the south was an outside country.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/e.../m0020205.html

kerry could of lost because he was ugly!! just kidding!!

[anastrophe]

Originally Posted by Jives

Bush =Saudi supporter

Saudis = Terrorist supporters

Bush =Terrorist supporter.

Terrorist supporter = Terrorist

Bush is a terrorist.

come on jives.

cats = bird eaters
birds = crop eaters
cats = crop eaters
crop eaters = crops
cats = crops

cats = birds

[anastrophe]

Originally Posted by Jives

lol. Ok Anny, you got me, but seriously, food sources and politics don't equate. But I'll give you that my logic was flawed.

if i might ask a favor now - i don't much care for the nickname 'anny'. no, i'm not sitting here on the other side of the screen with my face red as a beet and pounding my fists on the desk! it's just a minor irritation, like anal itching. i'd prefer either anastrophe or just plain old paul.

if you keep calling me anny, i should note that i will NOT hunt you down and kill you. i won't even steal your newspaper.

And also, you really, really should read "House of Bush, House of Saud." It's really startling, and yet, it doesn't seem to be biased, it's just a straight account of the facts.

i'm not much of a book reader myself. i don't doubt it's an interesting read. and i've no doubt that bush and the house of saud are buddy-buddies. many people got rich from oil. the saud family 'owns' saudi arabia, where the largest oilfields thus far have been tapped. oil and politics have a long history.