I’ve missed something until now. And most others have missed it, too. So I don’t feel too badly. All the whining and crying isn’t coming from Kerry supporters. Those who are seeking therapy aren’t people who went into this election with Kerry as their man.
They are Deaniacs. Their man lost in Iowa much earlier this year. They latched on to Kerry as a stand-in. After all the weeping for Howard Dean, they put their hopes in someone they had no real faith in–and he lost. That is why they are so hurt. They are double losers.
They are the ones crying for secession. And they are the ones whining that the blue states pay out more in federal taxes and receive less in return.
Let’s think about that last bit for a second. The blue states are the ones who advocate higher taxes, because they are the ones who want increased government spending and involvement in our lives (except for Defense, of course). Isn’t the fact this imbalance exists a boon to their philosophy? Aren’t they pleased?
And, if you will bear with me, who pays the taxes in this country? The top 5% income earners pay over 50%. A little logic will show that if all those things are true, the Democratic Party is the party of the rich. With all the wealth focused in NYC, Boston, LA, SF, and Seattle, it seems to me that it only makes sense.
Makes sense to me too, primarily because it’s true!
Comment by Wallace-Midland, Texas — November 12, 2004 @ 2:39 pm
Just out of curiosity, what led you to the conclusion that it’s Dean supporters taking the Democratic loss the hardest?
Comment by Bogey — November 12, 2004 @ 2:47 pm
They were the ones in tears during the primaries. They are the internet-savvy group on the far left.
Just thinking. May not be true, but I can’t imagine the bulk of the Democrats feeling this way.
Comment by Bunker — November 12, 2004 @ 2:57 pm
The professionals – like Carville – were already preparing the eulogies the weekend before the elections. They may loathe Bush, and they may have worked hard for Kerry, but they knew that the election was just an election, with another right down the road.
It’s the childish – meaning immature and unformed – who latched so hard onto Dean (OR ANY OTHER DEM) – and who were so distraught when the unwinnable candidate didn’t win.
Comment by Paulie at The Commons — November 12, 2004 @ 3:57 pm
While you are rallying adoration from your new found fans in the blogisphere you might want to consider what you are rallying from your family. Or does it even matter?
Comment by Ann — November 12, 2004 @ 4:02 pm
I was, am a Howard Dean supporter.
We were disappointed when Dean lost the primary, true. Many are arguing for removing the influence that Iowa and New Hampshire have in the primary process. And yes, we latched on to Kerry. “Anybody But Bush” was a strong sentiment.
I can only speak for myself, but I’m not distraught over Bush’s win. In fact, I had been predicting it for the last 18 months. I’m disappointed, yes, but not surprised.
I know of no Democrat, Deaniac or otherwise, that is seriously calling for secession. That’s just silly. It’s a joke, an ironic play on history.
Those in the blue states “whine” about receiving less spending than they put in because it is true. For those in the red states to put such high value on self-reliance and to denigrate welfare programs, is very hypocritical.
And by blue states wanting this or that, you mean Democrats. Well, Democrats do not want more government spending and they want less government involvement in our lives. This may not have been true 20 years ago, but the Democratic party has changed.
Dean was a strong advocate of a balanced budget. He indicated that a balanced budget amendment would be necessary if Congress couldn’t reign in its spending habits. Democrats want to keep the expiration provisions of the Patriot Act intact, and want to remove provisions that allow spying on ordinary Americans. Democrats do not want government getting involved in the health decisions of pregnant women. Democrats want all citizens to have equal rights, regardless of sexual orientation.
“A little logic” will show that the top 5% income earners represent a tiny group of voters. One man, one vote. So who cares what they think when they enter the ballot box? Their vote barely makes a dent.
But their money does have an effect. Democrats are the party of the rich? Are you serious? Hop on over to fundrace.org. Check out the “rich” areas of your city and tell me where their money was going. Couple that with the fact that the vast majority of the huge sums of money Dean raised during the primaries was in donations of $200 or less.
I won’t deny that there are people behaving silly on either side, but don’t paint us all with the same brush.
Comment by Crastinate — November 12, 2004 @ 5:05 pm
Thanks for the response from a Dean supporter.
I’m not trying to paint with a broad brush, but am trying to understand who these people are. Based on the primaries and the passionate support Dean had, I can only conclude that’s where it is coming from.
Democrats trying to minimize government? Universal health care comes immediately to mind. What other issue in this country would cause more government involvement in our lives? “Health decisions of pregnant women” means abortion. I don’t want the government making that decision either. Neither do I want the government paying for it. In my opinion, it is seldom a question of “health”.
“…remove provisions that allow spying on ordinary Americans.” Define “ordinary.” Have you read the Patriot Act. I have. I compared it to the concerns expressed by the ACLU. Actually, it appears to me that things like roaming wiretaps provide more protection for others than the previous method of monitoring a specific phone. It targets a specific person. And all provisions still require judicial approval. And Congressional oversight. It has a “sunshine clause” which will require Congress to address it once again. I think that is how every law should be written.
I checked the Federal Election Commission site and found that in 2000, Bush raised more than Gore while his average donation was $300 to Gore’s $800 average. About a month ago, Kerry and Bush were very close in both total raised and average donation. Of course, neither can count the 527 money expended.
My point on the “rich” is that wealth is concentrated in the very areas of the country that went blue. All areas have wealthy people.
There has not been a balanced budget in decades–since the time of FDR, if I remember correctly. The imaginary one we had in the ’90s was due to Social Security income being included, and spent. LBJ and a Democrat-controlled Congress gave us that process and method of accounting. Rather than investing that excess, it has been spent. We will soon reach the point where there isn’t enough coming in to cover what is going out. I’d like to see that changed.
Equal Rights. This is always thrown out in areas of conflict. The people of this country have rights based on state laws and constitutions. The US Constitution tells the Federal Government how it will do what it is allowed to do. The rest falls to the states. There are where you will find your rights. Why don’t we all work on the States to get them back?
I applaud you for supporting Dean. I thought he was good for the Democratic Party. Had he been the nominee, I would have given consideration to him as a candidate. I hope he takes the DNC away from McAuliffe, and breaks the cycle there. At the least, we would have had an alternative.
Comment by Bunker — November 12, 2004 @ 6:23 pm
I inadvertantly deleted this comment from a fan in Amsterdam while deleting spam:
Not that it was any different than the spam.
Bunker
Comment by Kerry Supporter — November 14, 2004 @ 4:11 pm