My favorite Post election cartoon

[Glengoyne]

I hadn't cruised over to Daryl Cagle's Cartoon page in a while, and I really liked this cartoon from the days right after the election. I actually hope this is what the Democratic leadership thought the "day after". That would be the first step in their fielding of a candidate that could beat an opponent of Bush's caliber(or lack thereof).

Someone here posted that at some point in the election Michael Moore had become the spokeman for the Democratic party. A lot of folks thought that was a ridiculous notion, but I think it is much closer to the truth than people would admit. I remember when Moore's endorsement actually hurt Wesley Clark in the Democratic primary. He tried to distance himself from Moore, but the damage had been done. Then months later Moore's message, or parts of it, were essentially incorporated into the Democratic campaign.

I fear Howard Dean taking over leadership of the Democratic Party. I fear it will be more of the same next time around. I want the Republicans to at least feel the need to put forward a more moderate candidate.

[larrymcg421]

I completely disagree. If anything, the Democrats have been a bunch of pansies ever since 1994. Daschle, Gephardt, and McAuliffe were completely inept. The Democrats need to stop being pussies and take on the Republicans. I fear if someone other than Howard Dean gets the job, they will just revert to the status quo and the Republicans will stay in charge for a long time. It's not about whether the new leader is liberal or moderate, it's about will he let the Republicans walk all over the Democrats?

[Solecismic]

I remember the day Moore stood up with Wesley Clark on stage at an event at a small college near here in Henniker, NH. That was the day I stopped listening to what Clark had to say.

The cartoon and the sentiments expressed here seem absolutely right. People like me were looking for an alternative to Bush. And when we listened, we heard the divisive rhetoric of Michael Moore.

(disclaimer: I did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004)

The Democrats need to move to the center to capture those who Bush alienated with his rampant spending and anti-secular policies.

[larrymcg421]

The Democrats have been moving to the center, for a long time. I don't know how they could move any further right without just joining the Republican party.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I remember the day Moore stood up with Wesley Clark on stage at an event at a small college near here in Henniker, NH. That was the day I stopped listening to what Clark had to say.

The cartoon and the sentiments expressed here seem absolutely right. People like me were looking for an alternative to Bush. And when we listened, we heard the divisive rhetoric of Michael Moore.

(disclaimer: I did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004)

The Democrats need to move to the center to capture those who Bush alienated with his rampant spending and anti-secular policies.

I don't think it's fair to call Bush anti-secular, just because he's not anti-Christian.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

(disclaimer: I did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004)

A LaRouche man eh?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Democrats need to move to the center to capture those who Bush alienated with his rampant spending and anti-secular policies.

If the Democrats challenged Bush's anti-secular policies, they would be accused of moving to the left, not the center.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I completely disagree. If anything, the Democrats have been a bunch of pansies ever since 1994. Daschle, Gephardt, and McAuliffe were completely inept. The Democrats need to stop being pussies and take on the Republicans. I fear if someone other than Howard Dean gets the job, they will just revert to the status quo and the Republicans will stay in charge for a long time. It's not about whether the new leader is liberal or moderate, it's about will he let the Republicans walk all over the Democrats?

I think this is pretty well on the mark... People are making too much of the left-right political spectrum, when the answer Democrats are looking for cannot be found there. The issue is not too liberal, too conservative. The problem is that they're too f-ing pathetic. They need to find a vision and some convictions. They need to figure out what in the hell their message is, and how they are going to sell it. I don't think even John Kerry knew what John Kerry stood for. That's the problem.

And BTW, Howard Dean as a party chairman would be a huge step forward. There's a guy who does have convictions and has a real sense of where the party should go. He doesn't exactly have a warm and engaging personality, which hurt his candidacy, but he gets what's wrong with the democratic party better than any of the big-name Dems. He's perfect to be the behind the scenes guy to get the party back on track. ...and for those of you who think the party is too liberal, Dean is essentially a Rockefeller Republican.

[Desnudo]

I don't think the Democrats need to challenge anything President Bush is doing. What they need to do is put together a coherrent message that lets people understand what they stand for, not just what they don't. They failed to do that in the last election.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I don't think it's fair to call Bush anti-secular, just because he's not anti-Christian.

It's not quite as simple as that. There are plenty of Christians, including me, who think Bush's anti-secular policies are very dangerous not just to the country, but to my religion as well. I don't want people to be Christians just because they're forced to. There's no faith in that. I want them to be Christians because they really believe it.

When someone is confronted by the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or a child is forced to stand up and say "under god" (or risk humiliation), I feel there is an element of coercion going on. "If you don't believe in this, then you are not like the rest of us". That's not the way I want to spread my religion.

[Surtt]

Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the candidate in 2008.
She is completely un-electable.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It's not quite as simple as that. There are plenty of Christians, including me, who think Bush's anti-secular policies are very dangerous not just to the country, but to my religion as well. I don't want people to be Christians just because they're forced to. There's no faith in that. I want them to be Christians because they really believe it.

When someone is confronted by the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or a child is forced to stand up and say "under god" (or risk humiliation), I feel there is an element of coercion going on. "If you don't believe in this, then you are not like the rest of us". That's not the way I want to spread my religion.

Do you have a real life example of anyone being involved in a forced convertion to Christianity that is President Bush's fault? Can you tell me where you or anybody refused to read the 10 Commandments or say "under god" and were forcefully coerced into saying it?

[larrymcg421]

I already gave you the school example. If a kid refuses to say it, they won't literally force him into saying it, but if they don't say it, they will be regarded as an outcast.

How can someone feel equal under the law if they go to court and see a religious document that they don't believe in. I certainly wouldn't.

Bush isn't directly responsible for this, but he does support the 10 commandments in courthouses and "under god" in the pledge. He's also said he doesn't consider Wicca a religion. If he's going to determine what is and isn't a religion, then how does a Wiccan have religious freedom? It's that kind of attitude that I think is very dangerous.

[Glengoyne]

I have friends who say it was the Religious Right who won this election for Bush, but I'm not buying it. Kerry and the Dems left a hell of a lot of votes on the table, and those votes were in the middle of the political spectrum. CBS(I think) released a poll yesterday that showed that 54% of the country felt that President Bush was leading the country the wrong direction. That is nearly the same percentage that voted for him election day. Clearly there were a lot of people dissatisfied with Bush, that Kerry and the Dems couldn't bring in the fold. I don't think that Howard Dean, who ran a campaign of demogoguery and contempt, is going to lure those voters to the Democratic camp.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I have friends who say it was the Religious Right who won this election for Bush, but I'm not buying it. Kerry and the Dems left a hell of a lot of votes on the table, and those votes were in the middle of the political spectrum. CBS(I think) released a poll yesterday that showed that 54% of the country felt that President Bush was leading the country the wrong direction. That is nearly the same percentage that voted for him election day. Clearly there were a lot of people dissatisfied with Bush, that Kerry and the Dems couldn't bring in the fold. I don't think that Howard Dean, who ran a campaign of demogoguery and contempt, is going to lure those voters to the Democratic camp.

I disagree. The reason those voters stayed with Bush is they weren't given another choice. They were handed John Kerry. As others have stated, it was hard to figure out what he stood for. He supported many Bush policies, then he didn't support them. I think a Democratic party that can offer a clear alternative will lure those voter to the fold.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I already gave you the school example. If a kid refuses to say it, they won't literally force him into saying it, but if they don't say it, they will be regarded as an outcast.

How can someone feel equal under the law if they go to court and see a religious document that they don't believe in. I certainly wouldn't.

Bush isn't directly responsible for this, but he does support the 10 commandments in courthouses and "under god" in the pledge. He's also said he doesn't consider Wicca a religion. If he's going to determine what is and isn't a religion, then how does a Wiccan have religious freedom? It's that kind of attitude that I think is very dangerous.

I support the 10 commandments and "under god" in the pledge. I don't consider Wicca a relgion. Would you prefer I lied to you? Of course not.

Bush does not determine what a religion is. The constitution grants us that freedom. He is not above the Constitution and hasn't tried to implement law to declare any religion or belief illegal.

I think his "attitude" is just honest answers to reporters questions. I will never blame a president for telling his honest beliefs on an issue.