The genius of George W. Bush

Bush told reporters aboard Air Force One from Italy that he disagreed with former President Clinton's comment that the pope will have a "mixed legacy." John Paul will have a clear and excellent legacy of peace, compassion and "setting a clear moral tone," he said.

We all know what Clinton meant (was Bill reading DKos last weekend?).  But it's just bad politics.

While Bill was being realistic, and weighing a number of opposing viewpoints (flip-flopper!), he was also speaking critically of the dead, on the way to the funeral.  He also perhaps should have remembered that he wasn't in Madame de Rambouillet's salon, but was aboard Air Force One with the head culture warriors.  

While I agree with Clinton, constrast Bill's statement with George's.  Bush was clear, direct, wrong, and said exactly what 36% of the electorate wants to hear.  Limbaugh, Hannity and irresponsible tax cuts take care of the other 15%, and that gave him an electoral majority.

I don't think we lose election after election because our healthcare plans are insufficient.  We lose mainly because we ignore archetypes.

Democrat                         Republican

Even without the labels, you knew who was the philosopher and who was the cowboy, right?  Now, I don't mean the rootin'-tootin' cowboy.  I mean the church-goin' family man, protecting his land and children from the godless outlaws.

Personally, I knew that George Bush had won the Republican nomination in 2000 (and the election) during the debate in which he answered that his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ ("Cause he changed my heart").  That's so freakin' brilliant on like seven different levels.  Most importantly, JC was not really a philosopher.  So, it thumbs the nose at those 'thinker' types.

What can we do, as Democrats?  Could we go after the fundie vote?  Yeah, right.  We will always be the party that supports abortion rights, freedom of thought, separation of church and state, sciece and reason, and social justice.  Should we go after the atheist vote?  "Nietzsche is my favorite philosopher because he said that God is dead".  Yeah, that would really lock in that 5% of Americans who don't believe in God.  Probably the best we can do is - KEEP OUR FREAKING PIEHOLES SHUT, BECAUSE WE BELIEVE FAITH IS A PRIVATE MATTER.

And about those archetypes, we can't ignore them when we pick a candidate in the primaries.  While a philosopher/cowboy may be hard to find (Will Rogers?), at least we should pick someone with a little charisma.  Or we could try to change the archetypes.  One or the other, but we have proven over and over again that doing NEITHER doesn't work so well.

•  I agree that we should keep our

  mouths shut in terms of religion, except when its necessary to talk about it. Its not a good thing to pander to this crowd, because they are predetermined not to trust a Democrat anyway, due to the archtypes you have mentioned.

  That being said, we need a strong charismatic leader, yes. Someone who doesnt need to say he loves Jesus because he ahs too many otehr interesting things to say and project. I still hold out hope that Dean will continue to win new fans, but seriously I think there are more than a smattering of charismatic Dems out there. Way more than there are GOoPers, anyway.
  

  by ablington on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:11:43 PM PDT

  •  There's a big difference between

    religion and values.  And I don't see how speaking out about a personal belief system can hurt a candidate.  

    We do need to learn how to share our values and ideals--as underlying concepts to our choice of action.

    From their, we could make a pretty good case that choosing a leader whose actions line up with his/her spoken values is probably a Good Thing.

    by chriscol on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:48:04 PM PDT

    •  Agreed...

      I mean 'religion', not 'values'.

      by ablington on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 06:50:42 AM PDT

•  I agree

  People say they want inspiring leadership, a profound Democratic Message, the wise man or magician or pope or father. I know it works because I belonged to a cult-like organization during the guru-chasing '70s and I have seen what a powerful hook it is. No one ever says let's vote for a competent administrator. The best we can hope for is a...messiah? Is there an archetype for someone who cleans up their own mess?

  by bluebird of happiness on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:23:21 PM PDT

  •  Or

    A competant administrator who seems cool, charismatic, and likeable.

    A cult, eh? Interesting.

    by ablington on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:26:58 PM PDT

    •  re: cult

      see my lone comment under "manifest destiny" diary, re brainwashing

      by bluebird of happiness on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:51:53 PM PDT

  •  That's sort of the nuturing mother archetype

    Except she cleans up other people's messes.  That one's not working out so well for us (see Lakoff).

    by lordkelvin on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:34:20 PM PDT

•  Clinton said more than that

  He said alot of praiseworthy things about the pope along with that. And the people who've suffered from the sex scandal here in the USA know it well.

  by shrdiv on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:30:00 PM PDT

•  Honest and intelligent

  I think Clinton gave an honest and intelligent evaluation of the Pope's accomplishments. Especially if you want to have any hope of educating the electorate, it doesn't get much better than that.

  by Sembtex on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:34:02 PM PDT

  •  Maybe this is the battle that we want to fight

    But then again, maybe not.  

    Clearly, it doesn't matter what Clinton says, because he's the one Democrat born in the US who can't run for President.  I'm just not sure that, instead of educating the public, Bill didn't score some points for the Republicans.

    by lordkelvin on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:45:07 PM PDT

    •  Not everything is politics

      Clinton is very involved with combating the spread of AIDS in Africa. The Vatican position on condoms costs thousands of lives, not unborn lives, lives here on earth. Clinton thinks that policy is abominable or to be diplomatic - "mixed". And Clinton was talking about Karol Wojtyla, a human being. Bush sounds like he is talking about Papal infallibility . Bush knows nothing of Catholic teachings - he's a cornpone Fundamentalist - his comments are pure drivel. Bush did not even include "excellent" in his original remarks - he added it to make himself look better:

      "I think John Paul II will have a clear legacy of peace, compassion and a strong legacy of setting a clear moral tone," Bush said, later asking reporters to amend his remarks to insert "excellent" to describe the legacy.

      I don't want to live in a world where every statement is parsed politically on some strategic level. It's a losing battle - better to fight for open debate and deflate the myth of infallible politicians and straight shooters than try and play the GOP spin game.

      by joejoejoe on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 10:23:56 PM PDT

•  disagree strongly

  you seem to be collapsing "fundies" and people of faith.  Many people of faith very much support the separation of church and state, science and reason and social justice.  many hold these positions because of not in spite of their religious faith.  our values are moral values too.  IMO we need to reclaim the ground we've ceded to the fundie right, because our silence allows the repubs to claim they are the party of jesus and faith.

  as for bush winning the debate with his jc comment, I don't think so. the americans who think jesus is their favorite philosopher weren't even watching the debate.  And by the way, I don't think he won the election....

  by sophiebrown on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:44:44 PM PDT

  •  No, when I said fundies, I meant fundies

    People of faith make up a large percentage of the country.  Fundies, well, 25%, maybe?

    We can be people of faith without wearing it on our sleave.  They will know we are people of faith by our actions.  Those who announce their faith and good deeds, verily, they have already received their reward.

    by lordkelvin on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:51:42 PM PDT

•  Charisma

  
  Now that's a tidy one-word summary of one of our weaknesses.

  Put it this way, lets take a walk through history:

  • Jimmy Carter: probably the most moral man to sit in the Oval Office in many decades.  Seen as a compromiser, not a leader.  Also struck the first Mideast peace deal, but that was compromise, not "leadership, American style.

  • Ronald Reagan: Oozed Charisma.  Even folks who hated every one of his stands was disarmed by his charm.

  • Mike Dukakkis: Question about his reaction to a hypothetical about his wife being raped and murdered.  Didn't even raise his voice as he stayed slavishly on message (Death Penalty bad).  Rode in a tank.  Classified not a leader.

  • GHW Bush Sr:  ex-CIA chief seen as a wimp.  One-termed into oblivion.  Didn't know the cost of a loaf of bread.  Not a "leader", just an administrator.

  • Walter Mondale: Nice guy, but so uncharismatic he only carried MN and DC, and let GHWB slide in on Reagan's coattails.

  • Bill Clinton: Felt our pain, and we believed it.  Charisma in spades and clovers and blue diamonds.

  • Bob Dole: stiff hatchet-man turned GHWB I clone.  Referring to oneself by name is a definite sign of Charisma deficiency.

  • Ross Perot: Crazy little man who rode to 20% with economic populism and fiscal responsibility message.  Brought in as many or more voters than he took from either party.  Charisma isn't necessarily great leadership.  Ross is exhibit #1 on that score.

  • GWB II: created the illusion of charisma by milking his 'good ol boy' image in carefully screened venues.  His handlers could have gotten Perot elected, with less effort.

  • Al Gore: Proof that Charisma depends on knowing oneself.  By trying to placate all of the existing dem splinters instead of forging forward as himself, lost the advantage of his natural Charisma (as shown on the talk-show circuit after the election).  Came across as wooden and lacking Charisma.  Luckily ran against the charisma-challenged GWB II and split the vote.

  • John Kerry: Charisma lost in long detailed explanations.  Effort to correct by sticking to 15 second sound bites repeated over and over (and over) drowned out his remaining natural Charisma.  Again, buoyed by running against the unpopular GWB II, and effectively got to run as both "John Kerry" and "None of the Above (aka Anyone But Bush).

  Lessons?

  1. My recall of history is no-doubt inaccurate and will be refuted :)

  2. Dems have a rough time getting Charismatic folks to run

  3. Even when we do, our lousy consultants try to redefine these men as "what the voter wants" instead of just letting them be themselves.

  4. I think we do ourselves a disservice in ignoring the lessons of Perot.  Before there was Dean, there was a man who riled folks up at a national level.  Now, when he rose to prominence, folks didn't wake up thinking "Gee, our deficit spending is worth changing our Government Leadership over."  He tapped into an issue pollsters didn't even see coming, but resonated.

  I think we're ready to retake Washington.  But we'll need Charismatic leadership, our lousy consultants to not screw up our candidate, and an issue that resonates with American's desire for a better America.

  Hint: "preserving" the old tired status-quo isn't enough.  Social Security will be our anvil if we concentrate on it as the end-all-be-all.

  by Yaright on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:50:14 PM PDT

  •  Points 3 and 4 are right on

    Our consultants are hacks and poll-watchers.

    The deficit was a defining issue.  The lying about WMD was a defining issue.  Iraq was not a defining issue because there were no alternatives offered.

    by lordkelvin on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:56:36 PM PDT

  •  A plain talker

    I guess we can associated plain talking and charisma, but I think a plain talker is really what we need. I agree with your argument though. Kerry got better as the campaign went on, but it wasnt enough. Someone who speaks clearly goes very, very, long away IMO.

    by jj32 on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:03:55 PM PDT

•  Clinton wasn't trying to hook up

  the Pope's legacy with his political agenda. George Bush was. And as for genius, GWB isn't a genius, he is a greedy opportunist. You want to see a political genius, look at Bill Clinton. The US is hated in Europe, but when he was in Rome, all he had to do to get chants of "USA, USA" was walk the streets. Pictures of Clinton are apparently hanging in shops in Rome, he is the most popular former President we have. Carter is probably more respected, but they all LOVE Bill. George Bush, on the other hand, was booed at the funeral and didn't dare show his nose outside his hotel room without guards and a motorcade. And as for faith, Clinton actually went to church regularly during his administration, George has yet to set foot inside a church, in spite of his blathering about his "faith". Clinton knows that we have separation of church and state in this country, George Bush apparently doesn't. Archetypes aside, one of them is a Rhodes scholar, and the other a Yale "legacy". Bush is totally outclassed by Clinton.

  by Demfem on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:55:21 PM PDT

  •  How many elector votes does Italy have? n/t

    by lordkelvin on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:00:51 PM PDT

    •  None

      but how many Catholics in this country? They vote, and went for him 52%-48% over Kerry I believe. If he can hook them to the Republican party, it helps in the future. Thus the "culture of life" garbage this week. If you saw the Daily Show from Thursday, I think, the opportunism is justlaughable. Apparently a person who is pro-life, pro- death penalty, and pro-war "beats out" someone who is pro-choice, anti DP, and anti war.

      by jj32 on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:07:11 PM PDT

      •  Weighted average

        One could say that last year there were less than 100 executions, less than a 1000 American soldiers lost in Iraq, and roughly 800,000 aborted unborn children.  Not saying it totally justifies the rhetoric, but 2 out of 3 positions is really trying to frame it just as liberals would like it.  Add in anti-euthenasia and anti-stem cell research and conservatives have 3 of 5 issues as well.  But this is coming from a pro-life, anti-death penalty, pro-Iraq War, pro-right to die, pro-stem cell research voter.  So I don't know if I "beat out" anyone else.  But I do agree that a culture that values life and starts with a presumption of life being valuable will lead to a more just society.

        by doverspa on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:19:15 PM PDT

        •  Well

          that's what I'm trying to say. look, Im not Catholic, but it seems to me for Republicans, as long as they are pro-life, that "beats out" someone who is Catholic and pro-choice, anti-DP and anti Iraq War. What I dont get is, that Bush has really done nothing to stop abortions. Clinton did, they went down during his terms in office. He emphasized "safe, legal, rare." Bush as governor executed more prisoners than any governor in the country. It just boils my blood when I hear him talk about 'airing on the side of life' in the Schiavo case when it didnt matter to him when he got valid appeals to the death penalty. In other words, what I'm saying is Bush is just an opportunist.

          by jj32 on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:07:58 PM PDT

          •  Some validity

            Especially on the death penalty count although that may be because I am sympathetic to your stance.

            However the liberal meme that "Clinton did something" to reduce abortions may make a good soundbite but not much else.  The growth of the pro-life movement, the Roe effect (less children of pro-choicers due to abortion), and the booming economy were all much more important.  And the economy was due to 1) Clinton policies (NAFTA), 2) Republican takeover of House (no HillaryCare, low spending growth), and 3) a big stock market bublle.  I don't deny Clinton had some impact, but overlooking the Republican Congress makes for bad research (although it might make good politics).

            by doverspa on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:41:28 PM PDT

            •  Hey LordKelvin

              you missed this one.  I only received 1s from you on all the others.  Thought you might want one more chance.

              by doverspa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 12:03:58 PM PDT

•  Hideous, Isn't It?

  When crass, vapid, contemptible, inarticulate are the adjectives that describe our current CoC and the majority of the people vote for the package because it looks to them like an American icon -- the Cowboy?

  And pusilanimous is the adjective hung on his opposition in the last election because he looks like that French icon -- "Le Penseur"?

  It's no wonder BushCo villify the French; it polishes their own image.
  

  by Limelite on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 04:56:22 PM PDT

  •  Rodin vs. Remington n/t

    by lordkelvin on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:01:34 PM PDT

  •  Question

    can you link or show anyone who voted for the President because he is "more like a cowboy."  I must really admit that these theories that are created in liberal talk rooms, are expounded on liberal websites, and then are accepted in liberal minds seem to be self-defeating to an outsider like myself.

    How do you go about winning more voters if their criterion is "who is more like a cowboy?"  I think most supporters of the President are happy to explain why they support him, and I doubt you'll find an appreciable number who think like that liberal caraciture you present.

    by doverspa on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:22:00 PM PDT

    •  I'm not sure it's the cowboy

      archetype per se - just the idea that there is a psychological undercurrent, something people respond to that they might not be consciously aware of, that ties into aspirations or ideals - what those ideals might be for Bush lovers, I can't guess, but they seem to exist.

      by bluebird of happiness on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:33:40 PM PDT

      •  Psychological undercurrent

        There is definitely something to that.  But it exists on both sides.  As a Bush voter (against twice - McCain, Gore, for once), I spent a lot of time looking at policies and priorities.  I know that many on both sides don't do that.  They choose who they trust to do what is right, for whatever reason.  Many people believe that the War on Terror should be fought on the terrorists' ground instead of on the homefront.  They see that the President is doing that and Kerry was pushing a "more sensitive" War on Terror.  That may appeal to some, but many Bush voters did not seek a more sensitive War on Terror.  FWIW, I think the archetypes are not that off the two candidate's real thought process and thus voting on them is not necessarily as problematic as some would have it.

        by doverspa on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:59:02 PM PDT

    •  I'm still waiting for them to give me a reason

      that is not based on lies.  None of my friends/family can give me an articulate answer as to why they voted for GWB.  They give me lies like: He'll keep us safe. (Yes, ignoring 52 warnings between 1/2001 and 8/2001 really kept us safe.)  Our taxes are lower. (I got a tax credit, not a tax cut.  And was it worth it with the ballooning deficit.)  He is moral. (WTF? He LIED to us, or at the least misinformed us, to get us into war, and has yet to explain, apologize, do anything to let us know what a screw up he is.)

      Any other reasons?  Let's be honest - there were two reasons to vote for George W. Bush this last time and people will not admit to either:

      GREED or BIGOTRY

      Period.

      by adigal on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:27:15 PM PDT

      •  Here's mine from a few months back.

        Hopefully it can displace the notion that only "greed or bigotry" motivates Republicans.

        Explanation:
        

        I generally supported the Clinton administration (although I am against abortion-on-demand) and I have generally supported the Bush administration.  I would have happily followed Lieberman if he had won the primary.  But it seemed this year that Democrats didn't want any of the Clinton-Lieberman DLC wing and they chose Kerry.  I was going to vote libertarian as a protest of the ever increasing size of government, but Badnarik was not on my ballot.  Forced to choose between someone who had the right goals in my mind (I supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terrorism) but implemented them poorly and someone who had the wrong goals (such as bringing the troops home as a goal) or didn't have set goals, I hedged towards having the right goals.   Remember there were a lot of people in the middle who weren't sure about the President (including myself), but didn't think he was the devil either.  We were put off by Michael Moore and attracted by Lieberman.  I'm not giving advice, I'm just explaining my thought process.

        Furthermore, I saw a better chance of having free market reforms on taxation and social security under the President.  And if his acceptance speech is any indication, it looks like economic issues and not social ones will be front and center over the next four years.  That is making me quite happy.

        by doverspa on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:50:31 PM PDT

        •  I am so happy with the economic reforms also

          Creaming the middle class with the bankruptcy bill, adding more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, adding to the deficit by giving Wall Street our Social Security funds - what noble goals you and this president subscribe to. <snark>

          You can kid yourself all you want: free market reforms = greed.  Don't try to color it.

          by adigal on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 03:30:39 AM PDT

          •  Ending poverty

            Free markets and capitalism are the only systems that have alleviated poverty in the world.  Not communism or socialism.  The first created worse outcomes and the second derived from formerly capitalist countries.  China and India have become more pro-market in the past 20 years and they have seen dramatic drops in poverty.  Check out the graphs in this Economist article for a feeling of the drop in absolute poverty since 1980.  It is the first time in history that the number of people in absolute poverty (making less than $1 per day) has declined.  And its because of free markets.  Allowing people to exchange goods and services without onerous restrictions is the best way to fight poverty.  In my experience, all of the economic research I have conducted and my time in the Peace Corps have reinforced that finding.  If that's greedy, then so be it.

            by doverspa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 12:01:15 PM PDT

            •  If we had a free market economy

              that might be great.  But we don't - what we have is an economy tilted in favor of big businesses.  The top 10% of businesses paid almost no taxes in the US last year, while small businessmen (and I am one) got creamed.  Big businesses, under this adminstration, have been given tax cut to outsource our jobs.  This administration cares about CEOs and big companies, lining their own pockets, the Bechtel Group and Halliburtons.  Not me and not you unless you have a mulitmillion dollar business.

              And the average wage for the American family just WENT DOWN last year for the first time in 14 years.  Great job, your guy Bushie is doing for the American people.

              by adigal on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 02:04:13 PM PDT

    •  Iconography

      the symbol associated with the idea.

      When it's cowboys, most AMericans think rugged individualist -- an image Bush tries to project. For instance, in  his administration's policy, remarks, and stance to the UN "with us or against us we're going to do this invasion of Iraq."

      Now the image and the reality here don't coincide.  Bush is less "cowboy," more "loose cannon."

      On a basic projected image level, the man buys a plot of land he characterizes as a ranch.  "Rancher" -- land-owning cowboy.  Yet he doesn't "ranch" anything -- neither cattle, nor horses, nor crops; not even -- gawd forbid! -- sheep.  

      Furthering that faux picture, he wears the cowboy-associated costume (boots, hat, obese belt buckle) and likes to photographed outdoors doing near-rancher things.  Just never on a horse like a real cowboy!

      Abroad, he is labeled a "cowboy," which is a perjorative term meaning American barbarian, implying loose-tongued, swaggering bullyishness, and sans savoir-faire.

      I think the shoe -- er, high-heeled. pointy-toed, non-girlyman footware -- fits.
      

      by Limelite on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 09:33:43 PM PDT

      •  I readily agree

        that the President is branding himself as a "rancher" or "cowboy."  What I asked was if someone "can you link or show anyone who voted for the President because he is 'more like a cowboy.'"

        I don't know anyone who thought... hmmm.... Kerry, Bush... hmmm... Bush is more like a cowboy, so I'll vote for him.  Some may disagree with his policies or rhetoric, but those who voted for him did it for certain reasons.  I don't see any evidence that "he was like a cowboy" is one of them.

        by doverspa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 11:54:38 AM PDT

        •  Can You Google?

          Why not find your own links?

          My interest, as evidenced in my posts, is iconography.  Denying the powerful effects that it plays on our creation of self-image and as a motivator of behavior is to deny decades of research supporting such done by psychologists (M. Csikzentmihalyi), sociologists (R.F. Baumeister), anthropologists (M. C. Bateson), and political historians.

          So, my comments support the effect.

          If you want evidence that people voted for W. "because he's more like a cowboy," you will have to get it for yourself.  I suggest conducting interviews to find people, since you also say, "I don't know anyone who. . ." beyond your close circle of intimates.

          Oh -- speaking of "branding". . .It's not just the prez "branding himself," as you say.  Many foreign heads of state, governments, and presses do too.

          Why are you trying to recruit me into doing the legwork you should be doing if you have a point to make?

          by Limelite on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 03:05:22 PM PDT

          •  It was your assertion

            "When crass, vapid, contemptible, inarticulate are the adjectives that describe our current CoC and the majority of the people vote for the package because it looks to them like an American icon -- the Cowboy?"

            I agree that the President has branded himself that way.  You haven't shown any evidence that people voted for him because of it.  If your theory is enough proof in itself, so be it.  I was just interested in seeing if you had any evidence.

            by doverspa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 03:12:35 PM PDT

•  Good diary

  minor quibble - GWB didn't win in 2000 and try as he might, the cowboy archetype for him remains weak (as contrasted with Reagan), although stronger after 9/11 than before.

  By mid 2003, it became clear to me that Democratic politic junkies way undervalue charisma and are really bad at perceiving who has enough of it that the TV cameras won't defeat them in a general election (assuming the opponent has any TV charisma).  On this dimension alone, Kucinich, Gephardt, Kerry and Graham should have been rejected before the race began.  And bad as all of those are, they were still better than Dukakis.  

  The other grave error that too many Democrats make is holding Clinton up as the one with charisma oozing out of his pores.  If he were really that charismatic, 1992 would have been a blow-out of the opposition and it wasn't.  He's really closer to GWB than Reagan was on this dimension and Clinton speak is a real turn off because it all too often lacks directness (and he usually uses way too many words to say whatever).  (And please, no "he won twice" defenses -- three way race in 1992 against GHB (also charisma challenged as soon as he opened his mouth) and grandpa Dole in 1996.  Kerry might well have beat either of those two.)  

  by Marie on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:24:15 PM PDT

•  Ah, who's that Remington-like

  fellow from Montana? Ah, Schw ....

  by Caneel on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 05:33:19 PM PDT

  •  Brian Schweitzer, we should keep an eye on him n/t

    by lordkelvin on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 06:05:40 PM PDT

•  Last weekend,

  I was horrified that there were three anti-religion diaries on the recommended list at one time.  I thought that anyone who stopped by the site and was not a committed Democrat was not going to be swayed by the rhetoric that was going full-steam here at dailykos.  Being anti-religion is simply not the way to win elections in America.

  by DCDemocrat on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:10:08 PM PDT

  •  Watch out.

    I'm afraid you might be on to something.  I was thinking the same thing reading all the anti-Pope screeds.  But as a Republican, it didn't worry me as much.  It did, however, help explain why Catholics are shifting toward Republicanism.

    by doverspa on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 08:01:29 PM PDT

    •  prove it

      this is a foundation-less asssertion.  

      bush, we should not have to remind ourselves of this but...   bush did not win in 2000.  plain and simple.

      clinton, as someone who has met him and met reagan, has far more humanity and charisma off-camera and on camera than did the gipper.  plus when clinton walked into a crowded room, the place became electric.  not the same with reagan.

      clinton told the truth about the pope; w lied.  baldly.  and then played twist and spin.  most folks are not swayed by his kowtowing to the meme du jour, as evidenced by his polling numbers.  after a while even novelties get old and boring.  in the case of W the novelty has turned its attention to now gutting our social secutity -- and since proximity of consequences is highly predictive of behavior (change) it is too close to home.

      and btw, had clinton not vetoed or used the veto threat, the economic boon we exerienced under his adminstration would nevver have happened.  or don't we remember the government shutdowns and the never-ending series of omnibus appropriations acts under the republian led congresses while clinton was in office?  hell, in the house they could not even pass a budget resolution.

      _______________

      it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

      -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

      by dadanation on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 04:55:24 AM PDT

      •  I agree with you about Clinton

        but not Reagan. Reagan wasn't as electric and exciting as Clinton, but then how many are? But Reagan is clearly the Republican's great hero. He is to them what FDR and JFK are to us. I'm not sure that Clinton has achieved that status in our party, although I think he deserves to be considered on the same par as Kennedy.

        by YoGo on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 07:21:09 AM PDT

        •  in time, clinton will

          part of our collective problem is that we don't want heroes who are human.  they by default have to be larger than life, unreal really, which is why the reagan creation works still so well.  we know how out of touch and mean and ill-equipped he was as well as how sick in all likeliehood he was in early alzheimers.  but that doesn't tarnish his image.  neither did the iran/contra illegalities or the iranian hostage drap or the air traffic controllers, etc. etc.etc.  we need heroes for some reaosn more than we seem to believe we need real effective leadership.  i find that striking.

          _______________

          it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

          -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

          by dadanation on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 02:13:04 PM PDT

      •  What are you talking about?

        I didn't mention President Clinton or either President's comments about the pope.  I echoed DCDemocrat's worry that the anti-religion diaries on dKos could very well turn off many people who might be open to voting Democratic otherwise.

        As for "proving it," here are some of those diaries:

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/4/154546/5467

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/2/205327/9790

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/2/20634/99698

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/2/163547/0483

        I recognize that there were diaries that were pro-JPII and anti-JPII.  But I was busy (and out of town) the weekend the Pope passed.  I only checked Kos once or twice.  And the overwhelming feeling was that posters hated or at least disrespected the Pope repeatedly.  That is a totally acceptable viewpoint.  And there are legitimate reasons to disagree with the Pope's views on many issues.  But reading the comments and diaries did make it easier to understand why more Catholics are voting Republican.

        by doverspa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 02:58:24 PM PDT

        •  you sidestepped my question altogether

          i asked you to cite the data showing that catholics are increasingly voting republican.

          here are some data sets and other stuff that speak to the contratry of your assertion.

          Catholics keep voting Democratic. In 1996, 54% of Catholics went for Bill Clinton, 38% for Bob Dole. They were among the few groups whose 1996 support for the president increased over its 1992 level. To be sure, the percentage of Catholics who identify themselves as practicing has declined quite sharply, from 73% in 1960 to 46% in 1996. But even among "active" Catholics, who attend Mass weekly, 44%, a hefty plurality, supported Clinton, while 47% voted for Dole. (These figures are taken from a Crisis magazine survey of Catholic voting patterns in November 1998 and June 1999.)

          here is the full story
          

          Kerry will be the first Catholic candidate to secure the Democratic nomination since the late President John F. Kennedy. Although Catholic voters in the past were viewed as a voting bloc, today many analysts agree that there are simply too many Catholic voters -- a little over 20 percent of voters are Catholic -- to be considered a unified voting entity. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, only 32 percent of Catholics say that their religious beliefs occasionally or frequently guide their voting decision. "When all is said and done, Catholics go to the polls as something else: veterans, union members, residents of the Northeast, young, old," said pollster John Zogby. "Being Catholic is not the major identifier."

          In contrast, the Pew study's results on Evangelical Protestants found that more than two-thirds of those who define themselves as Evangelical Protestants say that their religious beliefs affect their voting decision.

          here is the full article for this citation, empahsis added by me to the excerpt

          and then there is this article abut religion and voting patterns
          

          Gore drew very strong support from black Protestants, with 96 percent. The Democrats also were heavily supported by Jews (77 percent), Hispanic Catholics (76 percent), Hispanic Protestants (67 percent), and secular voters (65 percent). Gore also won other Christian (72 percent) and other non-Christian (80 percent) groups. Most of these figures were comparable to 1996, but increased turnout benefitted the Democrats in many cases.

          In addition, Gore won 59 percent of less observant white Catholics, an increase over 1996.

          Black Protestants and seculars each accounted for about one-fifth of the Gore total, while Jews, Hispanics, and the other smaller groups together supplied one-sixth. Catholics supplied one-fifth of the Gore votes, while mainline and evangelical Protestants each provided one-seventh. Less observant white Christians together made up one-quarter of the Democratic total, while more observant white Christians accounted for one-fifth.
          

          compound these trends (or lack thereof) with the decline in american catholic church-going...

          so, there are a few data sets.  how about you answer the real question i asked???

          _______________

          it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

          -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

          by dadanation on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 06:07:33 PM PDT

          •  Sorry your question wasn't too clear

            "this is a foundation-less asssertion."  I assumed you were refering to my assertion that there were anti-Pope screeds.  If you assertion is that Catholics are not trending more Republican, let me answer that one.

            Exhibit 1:

            For the first time in history, a majority of American Catholics voted this year against one of their own for President. President Bush and Senator Kerry both campaigned for the support of Catholics. In the end, 52 percent, including 56 percent of weekly church-goers, supported the Protestant Republican rather than the Catholic Democrat. In 2000, only 45 percent of Catholics supported Bush against a Southern Baptist. If Kerry had won the same Catholic vote share won by John Kennedy in 1960--estimated at 78 percent--Kerry would have turned his 3.3 million vote deficit into an astounding 14 million victory margin.

            Exhibit 2:

            There are 154 Catholics in the new Congress - an all-time high - including 87 Democrats and 67 Republicans. While Democrats hold their traditional lead among Catholics, Republicans are gaining, with two-thirds of new Catholic members coming from the GOP.

            Exhibit 3:

            See the graph mid-way down that shows the party identification of white Catholics from 1987-2003.  In 1987, white Catholics identified as Democrats by a 38%-25% margin.  In 2003, white Catholics identified 30%-28% Republican/Democrat.  So a +13 margin is now -2.

            It isn't as drastic as other shifts (i.e. Hispanics), but Catholics make up 25-30% of the electorate and are thus one of the biggest swing groups in the country.  They are trending Republican.  That may change, but for now Catholics seem to be open to Republicanism more than any time in the past.

            by doverspa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 08:26:48 PM PDT

            •  oddly

              the surge in catholic voters for clinton's 2nd term .

              what do you make of that then?

              and for all the surging of catholic voters, it did not better bush's standing in the most catholic states -- he retained his wins from 2000 and still lost michigan and deleware.

              what we do  know about the mythic catholic voting bloc (of which there is not, a lot like vito russo's comment about the gay influence in the movies "there s none and it is powerful") s that as the catholic vote goes so goes the popular election (but as 2000 showed us, not necessarily the presidency)

              _______________

              it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

              -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

              by dadanation on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 09:55:03 PM PDT

    •  Doverspa,

      what is your relationship with redstate.org and are you compensated for your presence at DailyKos?

      by GN1927 on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 07:00:33 AM PDT

      •  I've answered this several times before

        I'm an editor at Redstate.org.  I have never received money from any political organization, group, or official.  This is a hobby for me.

        by doverspa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 02:22:45 PM PDT

    •  Could be true

      But it is interesting that no Catholic has ever been even nominated for president by the Republican Party. Meantime, our party has nominated three (Al Smith, JFK, and Kerry) and a fourth (Cuomo) could have had the nomination if he wanted. Write back doverspa when the Republicans nominate their first Catholic. We'll be waiting.

      by YoGo on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 07:13:26 AM PDT

      •  If Jeb Bush seeks the Republican

        nomination, he may well get it.  Jeb is Catholic.  

        But your point is very well taken.  I am very proud of my party.  

        by DCDemocrat on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 07:50:39 AM PDT

      •  Good point.

        But we have only recently started to win over a plurality or majority of Catholics.  Even in 2004, President Bush won only a slim majority (52% I believe).  Jeb Bush would be the obvious Catholic who has a chance in 2008, but former Governor Keating in Oklahoma, Congressman Bobby Jindal in Louisiana and several other devout Catholics are in the wings as well.  It would not surprise me to see a Catholic Republican win the primary in the next 3-5 election cycles.  

        by doverspa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 02:27:32 PM PDT

        •  you are citing this exit poll data?

          Catholics maintained the historical trends of having higher levels of participation than the
          overall electorate and having voted similarly to the overall popular vote in terms of
          candidate choice. Media-sponsored exit polls indicate that 52% of Catholics voted for
          President George W. Bush (approximately 16.6 million Catholic votes) and 47% voted
          for Senator John F. Kerry (approximately 15.0 million Catholic votes).

          <snip>

          According to
          these data, the following states had the highest levels of Catholic turnout (in 2004): Tennessee,
          North Carolina, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Delaware, Michigan, and West
          Virginia.

          source for these two citations:   CARA & georgetown

          btw, there were no changes in the candidate who won these staes with the highest catholic turnout betwee 2000 and 2004.  gore, as did kerry, carried deleware and michigan.  bush carried the others both times.

          _______________

          it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

          -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

          by dadanation on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 06:24:35 PM PDT

          •  Yes I was

            citing exit poll data which I should have been less lazy about and linked to.

            In 2000, Bush received 47% of the Catholic vote, so he did improve 5 points which is quite a few votes  since Catholics are a large subgroup.  Even the 5-9 point gain among Hispanics is probably less voters since there are less Hispanics than Catholics (and of course there is some overlap).

            by doverspa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 08:32:03 PM PDT

•  voting reform

  If not for the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach and 6000 Gore votes lost there, Bush could not have been selected in 2000.  Voting reform (i.e., democracy) is the number one issue.  

  by ybruti on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 07:19:20 PM PDT

•  Lord Kelvin

  appears to have a serious case of Republican envy.

  by YoGo on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 07:28:06 AM PDT

  •  That made me chuckle.

    I don't do ratings here, otherwise, I would have given you a high one.

    by doverspa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 02:59:55 PM PDT

  •  Well

    At least he is an equal opportunity rating system abuser.

    by doverspa on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 08:32:53 PM PDT