In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> Mark Sobolewski wrote:

> > > Well, Mark... America is a free country, and, as you suggest, they
> are
> > > welcome to go the way of the stupid.  :-)  I have to admit that I
> would
> > > not be able to be a candidate representing such a stupid bunch.
> :-)
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> > The problem is that the stupid bunch are the primary
> > democratic party electorate:  Florida voters
> > for Buchanon, inner city residents with an 8th grade
> > education and recent immigrants who can barely speak
> > English (with the exception of my wife :-).
>
> I have no particular objection to your wish to blame old folks confused
> over insufficient ballots,

You mean the ballots the STUPID democrats designed and 6 year olds
figured out?  :-)

> but stealing an election is still stealing an election.
> And, I suspect that even stupid Americans know when an
> election has been stolen.  Do you really think Americans won't remember
> that?

Er, they remembered it enough for GW to win a second time.
Remember how you predicted he would be a one term wonder? :-)
Now he's spending some political capital, baby!

> > I don't doubt there are leftist elitists who are both
> > intelligent and wealthy, but they are in the minority.
>
> I think there are intelligent people in both parties, and the question
> that arises may be which party is smart enough to use disengenuous
> tactics in order to favor the rich.  :-)  As Michael Moore said,
> (paraphrasing) "hey, I'm ok; the vote for Bush made me richer.  I don't
> have to worry, I have health insurance and my job hasn't been
> outsourced."  :-)

Indeed.  The American people "got the momo" (get it) about
hysterical propoganda being used by certain leftists.
MM has no credibility outside of hardcore leftist
encampments.  Moderate leftists I know consider him
an embarassment.

> > Literally. The "middle class" red-staters didn't buy the
> > argument that they needed Frenchie to rescue them from
> > "outsourcing" while subjecting America to a
"global test"
> > and taxing them into the ground for the truly stupid
> > democratic electorate.
>
> By the Bush lowered approval ratings, I suspect those working stiffs in
> the red states are hearing the message now, Mark.

He had lowered approval ratings during the election too.

> It's rather too late
> for them to do anything about it now.

?!?!?!

That's an incredibly STUPID thing to say.

Approval ratings are not votes.  No elections are scheduled
for at least another year and a half.  That's plenty of
time for gas prices to fall.  (Pretty funny considering
that Gore and Kerry tried to sell the American public
that signing Kyoto was a good thing.  Do you think
the public would be happy if GW signed off on 4 dollar
gasoline to make the Europeans happy?)

> And, what tax break?  :-)  Even
> staunch Republicans are not happy with the Bush budget, or lack of one

Ironically, that's because of his moderate stance.
One neat thing about the dems is how they rarely reward
Republican presidents and Governors for being moderates.
Thank heavens!  Do keep it up!

> > The left now appears to be writing a book: "How to
> > lose elections"  First, be as bitter as possible
> > and a crybaby.  Voters have a lot of confidence in
> > crybabies.  Next, if you don't get your way, tell
> > everyone who didn't vote for you that they're stupid.
> > They'll remember that next time for sure. :-)
>
> I'm not running for office, Mark, so yes, I can tell the American
> voters they are stupid.

And they really pay attention to you. :-)

I'm sure they hear this from other leftists and ask themselves:
Why do I want to join a group of people who are so closed
minded to think that anyone who disagrees with them are stupid?

> I doubt Hillary will say it; so I may as well.
>  :-)

I don't think Kerry said it either, yes?

What happened was that all the nasty remarks made by
the press (and Micheal Moore) about middle class white voters
and gun owners being stupid rednecks stuck to Kerry like
flypaper.

Kerry then went out and tried to appear to be a gunowner
and shoot at some birds to show middle class gunowners:
"Look!  I'm just like you!  I wear designer jackets
when shooting though..."

It didn't work even if he had chosen to not use a gun
he was trying to ban a few years before... :-)

Same thing with Wendy's: It was hard for him to connect
with the common folk when eating fastfood when he
ate French food at his trailer afterwards...

Hillary, if she runs (please, oh please...), would
help to solidify the right, push moderate voters
who don't want $4 gasoline to vote Republican, etc.
She doesn't connect with voters outside of NYC, SF and Boston.

> And, Mark...let's not forget that our country is one that prefers
> balance; we have Democrats in power and then we have Republicans.

Er, no.

Our country prefers WINNERS.  If the ONLY thing a democratic
senator in a hotly contested district has going for him
is "Vote for me so you can balance!  I'm also a sore loser
and think Europe is so much better than here and you
are all so stupid!" who do think Joe (and yes, even Jane)
six pack "middle class" voter will cast their ballot for?  Hmmm?

> Personally, I like that.  It provides balance.  Where I specifically
> object is that Bush was put into office by the SC the first time

So you're saying you don't think the US should have a Constitution?
Strange...  The holy document says otherwise.   1 recount
was enough.  So sayeth the holy document.  :-)

> and
> was elected the second time because of fearmongering.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, thank you for that one!!!!

The leftists have been saying for years that if we don't
sign off on Kyoto, we'll all be in waterworld.
Or that GW is worse than Hitler.  Or MM's film showing
right wingers as all out to kill leftists with their guns
tomorrow.  Or that the war in Iraq is going to fail
miserably and the Iraqi's will never endorse elections.

> I object to Bush
> in office.

HAHAHAHAHA!  Good luck!  Are you bitter?

Please, let me taste some of your tears... :-)  It's
so distressing to me how much you don't like
Bush in office.  Awwwwwwwww.  :-)

Do you realize that's what brought out right wing voters?
They got off on watching leftists cry last time.
Many leftists stayed home because maybe they
believed the election was fake.  So good.  Stay home
guys.  We'll run things from here.  Or move to Canada.

> Had the Republicans chosen a reputable leader I don't think
> I'd be as critical.

Er, in a free republic the party doesn't ask it's opposition
to choose it's leader. :-)  I don't see Hillary asking
the republicans if they like her.

> Also, keep in mind, that I also didn't like Al Gore either.  It would
> have been nice to have had two good choices.

Yep, just as with the SC, you toss him over the side of the boat
when he doesn't work out.  See?!?!

Even YOU don't like LOSER CRYBABIES!!!!

> Had Powell run, for
> example, I would have been able to vote Republican.  :-)

Unfortunately for you, saavy republicans know he's
swings very far to the left.  Instead, he's been used
for publicity purposes very effectively and sat
around at the State department.

Very clever politics on the part of the RNC.

> > > Of course, I don't need to BE a candidate, nor do I need to run for
> > > office to make sure my ideas are heard.
> >
> > They're heard all right.  That's the problem!
>
> ?????  I think that's ok.  They can't address a problem they can't
> hear. :-)

The problem of not voting for your candidate?  I don't
think that's a problem. :-)

> > Both parties feel a need during elections to shimmy into
> > the center and appease as much of the moderate electorate
> > as possible.
>
> Well, both parties are supposed to represent all the people and you
> can't do that, as president, if you're only going to represent your
> party's efforts.

In the case of "stupid" people (real stupid people),
it is possible to represent their interests if the
stupid really are making bad decisions.  Yes?

Look at you: You regard western eurocentric society
as oppressive and evil corporations as a problem.
Now they're leaving California.  See?  You got
your wish!  See how SMART leftists are? :-)

> > Your side's base needs more handholding than the other
> > side's.  Even when it was possible for Kerry to keep
> > his mouth shut and maybe win by default, he couldn't
> > resist insulting the precise "stupid" electorate
> > (the middle class) he was trying to get on his side.
>
> I don't recall Kerry mentioning the stupid electorate, but I do suspect
> he and his wife understand that it is stupid.  :-)

Oui oui!  :-)

And the "stupid" people also had their suspicians.  You don't
think you're the only one, eh? :-)

Fortunately, the Swift Vets (for a fraction of the budget
of MoveOn) were able to steal several percentage points
from "rice wound purple heart" Kerry.

Think about it: Michael Moore, a very clever propogandist with
a huge budget and the backing of Hollywood couldn't stop
GW even with a bad economy and two wars going on.  A small
bunch of "stupid" vets who merely threw up some footage
of Kerry verbally spitting on his fellow soldiers
made a far greater impact.

Think about it.

> Kerry seems to me a
> very good man, but then Jimmy Carter was a good man and he didn't get
> two terms.

You mean good "peaceful" Carter who backed a hated dictator in
Iran and then subjected the US people to a year and a half
of being held emotionally hostage?  The same Carter who
reinstated selective service registation?

Heck, he is a good man in a way: He helped push RR into office.

> I suspect that being a good person is not enough to have voters vote
> for you.

Indeed.  It helps if that comes across on camera rather than
being condescending to the electorate you're trying to swing
and kissing Eurotrash butt.

Bush, even if he was tired and coming across as not terribly bright
didn't pander to the voter.  He "connected" with the voter
and even took some gambles to show he was being sincere
(such as refusing to answer a woman's question about
mistakes he had made.)  He also didn't get arrogant.
Kerry tossed any presidential hopes into the trash when
he talked about a "global test".  That hit the advertisements
within minutes after he said it.

Bush and Reagan were often compared to "Forrest Gump", a character
who stumbled his way into success.  Forrest Gump was a hugely
popular film not because it pandered to the self-absorbed
60's generation, but rather because it had an American message
that hard work, kindness, honesty, and RESPONSIBILITY were
values that defined success RATHER THAN intelligence
and a feeling of superiority which is the trademark of
the leftist.

>  And I don't think Kerry was able to provide the same paternal
> safety net that Bush provided to stupid voters. :-)

For some reason, the endorsements of Bin Laden and the North
Vietnames (not to mention the French) didn't work with
stupid American voters. :-)

> > Say what you like about W (and you will :-) but
> > he genuinely makes an outreach for women and
> > minority voters (some say too much even) without
> > insulting his base.
>
> Bush does what he does in order to make the rich richer;

Yeah, such as tax breaks for the middle class.
(You know, Clinton's "millionaires" he pledged not to tax.)

Let's discuss this: Bush Sr. made a critical error by
raising taxes against his promise (and later having congress
raise spending anyway) and then creating a harsh recession.  He
caved in and the left hung him out to dry.

The right could have done what the left did for Clinton:
Stood by him just to get him re-elected.  They didn't.
This was VERY VERY smart.

Clinton, promised to raise taxes only on millionaires
and people bought it.  He won reelection only because
of Dole being an extraordinarily lousy candidate and
moderate.  He was "beltway" through and through.

When Kerry then tried to come along and make a
"taxes only for rich people pledge", nobody bought it.
It fell flat.  EVERYONE, I mean, EVERYONE knew
he was planning to find an excuse to raise them
later anyway.  He insulted the intelligence of the voter.
GW, to his credit, has not raised taxes.  He's helped
to clear up some of the dark cloud over his father's
presidency (and I think this is why he was so hot
to go into Iraq.  He wanted to finish things for his
old man.)

> stupid voters
> may not understand that.  :-)

You're saying then that "stupid" voters don't
fear the rich stealing from them?  Hmmm, didn't you
say it was the right that fearmongered?

>  And any "outreach" Bush makes toward
> women is just to get him where he needs to be to give away the store to
> the rich.

Yep, that's the neat thing about government power:
The same "store" that's built upon stealing from the middle class
"stupid" white guys can be used for purposes you disagree with
later.  Isn't that neat?

Of course, I'm not the first one to observe this
(Barry Goldwater deserves the credit.)

> > Sometimes, "stupid" people win simply by being hardworking
> > and likeable.
>
> Apparently that's true, when one is surrounded by stupid people who
> support you.

Yes.  And the fact is that they're voters who deserve just
as much consideration as anyone else.

The fact is: NOBODY has ever changed their mind because
someone helped them find out how stupid they are.
Smart people know how to know to be likable.  It's
as simple as that.  If you're calling people stupid
for simply not disagreeing with you, it's because
YOU'RE not smart enough.

That goes for me too.  Apart from enemies (hello!) who
really don't want to find peace, I seek philosophical
avenues of mutual benefit.

If you think the voters are "stupid" now, be in store
for them to get more, er, stupider.  :-)  You've
only seen the beginning!

> > >  As to the next Democratic
> > > candidate, I have no idea what they should say, to help people who
> are
> > > being led by the nose, down the primerose path.
> >
> > Hopefully, they'll get another candidate who thinks that
> > way and displays that attitude during public appearances.
>
> Are you suggesting that Bush thinks American voters are not stupid?
> :-)
> He laughs all the way to the bank;

Er, he was already AT THE BANK!
Both candidates are not trying to make a buck off of this.
It's ego that drives them.

But yes, he was SMART enough to not insinuate to their
face or to have his lackeys broadcast that notion out
loud on their media outlets 24x7.  Bush voters
now know full well what you think of them.  See if
they like the next candidate based upon that opinion
too.

> the only difference is, he doesn't

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100