Lessons Learned

[Laurie 10]

Hmmm...NJ & I linked in Issues and Politics--that's a first

 

Pack, that is exactly the tone and language that I find offensive and would cause me to stop listening to the person using it, here or abroad, and regardless of which person is being written about.(This message has been edited by Laurie)

[LovetoCamp 9]

The British are solidly behind the War on Terror. They too allow dissent occur in their country, as we do. Where does the rest of the world get their view of America? They get it from these lunatic TV shows, MTV, VH1, the Simpsons, etc. and the news networks. They see Dan Rather using forged documents. They see the bilge that Michael Moore made a zillion bucks peddling. They see lefty columnists calling nice people who happen to go to church the American Taliban and garbage like that.

 

Is it no wonder they have a twisted view of us after being barraged by the networks hidden agenda?

 

 

[Hunt 11]

It seems to me that another lesson learned from this election is the increased power of the "wedge issue." That's an issue that will mobilize people to vote one way without thinking too hard about a lot of other issues, and even against their own economic self-interest. In this election, the Democrats thought they had the ideal wedge issue--the Iraq war--but the Republicans trumped them with the unlikely issue of gay marriage (and secondarily, abortion). I think abortion alone will not do it--it hasn't in any prior election, and I don't think the national split on the issue has changed all that much.

Reagan also used these moral/social issues to get reelected, but he never really did much about them while President, leaving a lot of the religious right feeling betrayed--and Bush I cared about them even less, which may help explain why he didn't get reelected. It will be interesting to see if Bush really does all that much on those issues or if (as I predict) he will focus on issues near and dear to the old-line Republicans, like taxes.

[Eagledad 2777]

>>It will be interesting to see if Bush really does all that much on those issues or if (as I predict) he will focus on issues near and dear to the old-line Republicans, like taxes.

[packsaddle 753]

"Just 43% of the British believe their country made the right decision to use military force against Iraq, down sharply from 61% last May (2003)"

 

This is quoted from a Pew Research Center report:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796

 

I have no idea why this won't show as a link.

Although the most recent numbers seem to be from March 2004, it is unlikely that they have increased much since then. There are other interesting results in this report as well.

Hunt, I agree with your idea about 'wedge issues' but I think you underestimated the importance of abortion as a deciding factor, at least from what I have noticed in our region. But your point is a good one, not much change is likely there. More likely in the tax code or corporate areas.

[Rooster7 11]

I believe, aside from content, it is important to note that it comes from our strongest ally and may represent a rather popular view in the rest of the world.

 

And that my friend is a microcosm of whats wrong with the Democratic Party and the world in general! These folks express way too much concern and tribulation over the popular thing to do rather than the principled thing to do.

 

12 years ago, Bill Clinton and his liberal cronies road into town with the bumper sticker anthem Its the economy, stupid! Back then, and still today, they stand convinced that those red states supporting Bush, just dont get it. Well, now its the red states turn. Perhaps this would make more sense to those in the blue states, if we had a bumper sticker. Try some of these

 

Its called morality, stupid!

Its a principled thing, you wouldnt understand!

Got Values?

 

"It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible."

George Washington

 

[Hunt 11]

If you take a look at www.pollingreport.com, you can see the results of a bunch of different opinion polls taken over the last few years. There are a lot of surprises to be found. For example, a strong majority of Americans (about two thirds) support Roe v. Wade--although probably most Americans would like to see some restrictions on abortion. Only a small minority of Americans want to see all abortions banned. On gay marriage, a strong majority opposes gay marriage (and a majority would even support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman), but a majority also supports civil arrangements giving many of the rights of marriage. Most people are against further tax cuts, and, by a large majority, think the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. Most Americans favor the death penalty. The breakdown of these numbers hasn't changed all that much in recent years.

What does this mean? I think it means that there is a large chunk of the population that has mixed emotions on many issues--i.e., they don't like abortion, but they don't want it to be banned, either. They don't like gay "marriage," but they don't like discrimination against gays either.

Thus, to win the presidency, you must do one of two things:

1. You must put up a moderate candidate who will appeal to that middle group, but still get most of your "base." or

2. You must mobilize your "base" better than the other candidate--and the other candidate must not be too moderate.

Thus, Clinton won easily--twice. He managed to appear moderate despite efforts of his opponents to paint him as an extreme liberal. In 2000 and 2004, there was no moderate candidate, really, so mobilization of the base is what counted.

Thus, I predict that at least one of the parties will field a moderate (or apparently moderate) candidate next time. If there is only one such candidate, he will win.

[gsmom 10]

"The British are solidly behind the War on Terror. They too allow dissent occur in their country, as we do. Where does the rest of the world get their view of America? They get it from these lunatic TV shows, MTV, VH1, the Simpsons, etc. and the news networks. They see Dan Rather using forged documents. They see the bilge that Michael Moore made a zillion bucks peddling. They see lefty columnists calling nice people who happen to go to church the American Taliban and garbage like that.

 

Is it no wonder they have a twisted view of us after being barraged by the networks hidden agenda? "

 

Having lived in England for the last two years, I can speak to what the British are watching. There is the BBC, ITV and Sky news, and a raft of independent newspapers from the liberal (Guardian) to the "conservative" (the Sun). Dan Rather is on at 5 in the morning in a CBS news rebroadcast.

 

First, the British do support a "war on terror" since they have had to deal with terrorism many more years than we have with the IRA. They do not (as many of us Democrats and liberals do not)equate the war on terror with the war in Iraq. Most British strongly oppose the war in Iraq. There is a lot of anger right now over the death of British soldiers sent to Baghdad at the request of the US military.

 

The current view of the US is shaped by our policies, including our treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo (before Supreme Court intervention they were held indefinitely without recourse to the courts), our rejection of treaties including the Geneva Convention as applied to certain prisoners, and our policy of preemptive war. Whether or not you agree with these policies, this is how they are viewed by a substantial number of British. Abu Graib and what is perceived as our government's inadequate response is also a factor.

 

Although it would be comforting to think that media excesses have distorted our policies, unfortunately that is not true here.

 

[Rooster7 11]

The current view of the US is shaped by our policies, including our treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo (before Supreme Court intervention they were held indefinitely without recourse to the courts), our rejection of treaties including the Geneva Convention as applied to certain prisoners, and our policy of preemptive war. Whether or not you agree with these policies, this is how they are viewed by a substantial number of British. Abu Graib and what is perceived as our government's inadequate response is also a factor.

 

I find it painfully amusing that liberals in this country (and now apparently the leftists amongst the British population as well) are all self-appointed experts on matters of foreign policy, diplomacy, war, international treaties, and terrorism. Try trusting your President, his administration, the intelligence community, the US military, and those empowered to represent these United States. I know its a stretch, but they might know more than you doeven more than some reporter from the Washington Post or some other journalist major whos trying to make himself a name, just to impress his elitist boss or a bunch of bluebloods (probably living in the blue states). While no one is suggesting that you blindly follow your government everywhere and anywhere; have you ever considered the possibly that they -

1) Have our countrys best interest at heart, more so than any self-proclaimed international community (i.e. the U.N.)

2) Know more than what they could ever possibly share,

3) And are making tough decisions everyday which require taking some risks.

Sadly, the liberal agenda has no conscience. They use every opportunity to exploit for political gain. Abu Graib is a prime example. Rather than recognizing it as an aberration, they treat it as common occurrence a typical example of abuse within the ranks of the US military. Worst, they spread this propaganda while truly innocent beings are being horrifically beheaded for merely associating with America or Israel. But no everyone is an expert, so everyone can say as they please. Facts and real knowledge be damned. In the name of free speech, the liberal media and their followers gleefully besmirch, slander, and sully the reputation of this President and everyone associated with him. Why? Because they claim to know better. Theyre enlightened.

 

Just as an aside - do you honestly believe that the British press/media are not swayed by the American networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc.) or internationally known newspapers such as the Washington Post or the New York Times? I realize the English are proud, but they do not live in a vacuum.

 

How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge? Proverbs 1:22

 

He who trusts in himself is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom is kept safe. Proverbs 28:26

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Rooster's posts are a good example of why it's a good thing we did not have this discussion before the election. Before the election I probably would have felt compelled to respond to his comic-book version of politics in this country. Now I don't.

 

Except maybe for this:

 

Try trusting your President, his administration, the intelligence community, the US military, and those empowered to represent these United States.

 

Really, Rooster, do you say that when Democrats are in office, or only Republicans?

[Rooster7 11]

NJ,

 

But you did respond - by slighting my post as a comic-book version of politics in this country. It was a typical liberal smear; all style, but no substance. Did you work for Kerry? If youre going to jump onto the playing field, have some game to go with that trash talk. Otherwise, it doesnt impress anyone.

 

Really, Rooster, do you say that whey Democrats are in office, or only Republicans?

 

Glad you brought it up. I stand by my words regardless of who is in office, until the facts prove I should do differently (not a story on an Internet blog or a movie by Michael Moore) and/or the Presidents own words and behavior tell me otherwise. For example, I agonizingly supported Jimmy Carter for four years. But I danced with delight when Reagan came into office and restored some pride to this country. Since Clintons idea of morality contradicted mine, I found it a little difficult to support him in all matters. But if the facts and/or the Presidents words did not give me reason to object, I remained open minded and supported the president when I could.

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

When I look back over this thread, I am reminded of Forrest Gump's feather and how little control we have over threads we start. I has originally conceived of this thread with a notion of talking about how we as members of this this forum address each other and that every thread doesnt have to be a referendum over which way is best, or who the biggest jerk is or anything like that. I was using the election as an analogy, trying to compare even though there are republicans and democrats, we are all Americans. I was thinking that here our common ground is we are scouters, even if we dont always agree on what consitutes hazing or allowable discipline. That we should still be civil to each other. I do take a small margin of comfort in the fact both Rooster and NJCubscouter questioned my original post, so at least I ticked off both sides of the aisle equal time you know.

 

Anyhow, continue villifying each other over everything we can and then wonder why our kids have such horrible attitiudes towards anything new and different.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Did you work for Kerry?

 

Nah. I have dabbled in active partisan politics at times, but I tend to stay low-key these days since I hold a non-partisan elected office. My youngest brother did work for Kerry.

 

You know, Rooster, I've noticed you live in a "blue state," and one of the bluest of blue states in fact. For all the terrible things you say about "liberals," you have ended up living in a state dominated by them. Even the Republican elected officials in Maryland have been pretty liberal. I won't ask why you live there, because it's none of my business, but I just find it kind of ironic.

 

As for my "comic book" remark, I said it because it's true. Everything with you is oversimplified, bad liberals vs. good conservatives, "supported" by Bible passages that could just as easily support an opposing argument. It's not real life.

 

And by the way, I noticed in the third debate when President Bush was asked whether homosexuality is a choice, right between him saying he doesn't know (an honest answer) and opposing gay marriage (a position with which Kerry agreed), he said something about gay rights that sounded pretty liberal to me. Nothing about perverts or the wrath of God. You should be worried, Rooster, the president may turn out to be a uniter, not a divider, after all.

[JimmyD 10]

Kerry wanted civil Unions not the titl of "marriage"

[packsaddle 753]

OGE, I'm not angry with you, or what you said. Some of us simply are incorrigible and others are like moths to flames. You were expecting what?

Again I see respondents dismissed through application of ridicule (the 'comic book' comment) or a term, "liberal" in this case, probably intended as pejorative. I now confess the following: I subscribe to "The Economist".

I now note that when Rooster7 had the opportunity to rise above the comment flung by NJ, he chose the other option and used the identical tactic to reject NJ. What's the term for that, 'irony' perhaps? Hypocrisy?

 

There is an entertaining column entitled, "There's a word for that" in the latest issue of "The Economist", November 6-12. It starts by quoting Mr. Bush's frequent statement, "There's a word for that", "It's called liberalism." This was the response Mr. Bush gave to nearly every terrible thing advocated by Mr. Kerry. Application of the term seems to have worked its magic in this case, though.

 

But the article is a fairly entertaining explanation for the problem with such dismissals. If you can't find a copy of the print, there's also:

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/l/li/liberalism.html

 

Unfortunately, "The Economist" requires payment for access to their full-feature web content.

My point, as the broken record goes, is that we miss opportunities to interact constructively when we make such dismissals, ignoring the ideas. The word for the result of that is 'ignorance'.