If the Dems dump the homosexuals would they become unbeatable?Did Bush win in 2004 by taking a firm stand against homosexual marriage?
Nah Bush won because Kerry was a crappy candidate and Bush was the best out of the 2 to continue on with the war.Did Bush win in 2004 by taking a firm stand against homosexual marriage?
Naw, Bush won by the use of Diebold Electronic Voting Machines. If not, why then were every Diebold Electronic Voting Machine in every state decertified before the next state elections? Not to mention the states where Republicans were caught with the ';hack'; or the Diebold employees who testified they were paid by Republicans to not only tell them how to hack the machines but showed them how.
I was shown how it worked by a former friend inside the Republican ';Machine';. All you needed was a pendrive and a little bit of code.
No.
Bush won in 2004 with two major reasons.
1) Fear. He scared the living sh*t out of people, and then convinced them he was the only one who could protect them. This was especially well-seen in his ';wolf commercial,'; in which he showed a pack of rather hungry-looking wolves looking at the camera. This, of course, was really meant to make the wolves look like they were hungering for us. The commercial eventually hinted that the wolves were representative of terrorists, ready to get us if we let our guard down even a little bit.
Which, of course, suggested that Kerry would let that guard down and get you killed. It was considered Bush's most effective attack.
2) The other main reason was convincing people that Kerry flip-flopped a lot. Kerry didn't help matters with that quote he said, ';I was for it before I was against it.';
What he was talking about was the Iraq War. He was being attacked by Republicans as being too soft on terrorism, as shown by his lack of support for the Iraq War. What Kerry was saying was that he was more than ready to hit the terrorists, but Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. He supported it when he was told it was a fight against terrorists; but changed his mind when he was told the truth later. The situation had changed, and so his stance had changed with it.
Not exactly a flip-flop...but really, what did Kerry think was going to happen when he said that?
Another example of a ';flip-flop'; charge leveled at Kerry was his stance on gay marriage. During the 2004 campaign, Kerry was against gay marriage. The Republican Party represented that as a flip-flop.
Problem is, it was not a flip-flop. Now I disagree with Kerry on his stance, but he has ALWAYS been against gay marriage; and has never changed that stance--whether before, during, or after the 2004 campaign. He didn't flip-flop.
But it was not the Democrat Party line. And so Bush had no qualms about presenting Kerry's stance as a flip-flop, because he knew most people would believe him on it and not actually bother to check on it.
Kerry didn't lose because he was for gay marriage; in fact, he was very much against it. Kerry lost because Bush did something that, while legal, was rather immoral. But hey, that's how the game works when Rove is coach.
As far as gay marriage. Allowing it is still the minority opinion, not the majority. However, that majority is made up mostly of older voters; and the gay marriage supporters are made up mostly of the young.
In essence, for right now the best position is to be anti-gay marriage. However, within a few years (when the older voters have died and the young are the growing section of voters) the best position will be pro-gay marriage.
The Republicans have the advantage in this issue for now; but more and more it will be a detriment to them.
No, he won by having Blackwell give him Ohio.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_鈥?/a>
No, he won by spending tens of millions to slander a war hero, and tens of millions more to rig the Ohio result.
He won by the use fear as used by the master or the GOP Karl Rove.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment