Brad Radcliffe's article is spot-on

[maxudargo]

His article here in DU, "Frat Spankings and Bush Followers." I think he nails it, and it's kind of scary. People continue to support Bush because they can't admit to themselves they were so wrong in supporting him in the first place, and the more obvious it becomes that he's incompetent, the more strongly they'll support him.

Thank God presidents are limited to two terms. Although, how much you want to bet there will be a movement to repeal that amendment as the next election approaches...

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maxudargo]

2. If only he had your capacity to build an intelligent argument

[RoBear]

3. No, he was looking at you and yours.

Get lost.

[Robbien]

4. Wow, and this is your very first post. How idiotic can one get?

See ya!

[harris8]

5. Great article, I wish I could share it with "The Others"...

... but Radcliffe makes just one mistake, two times: he describes those subjects of cognitive dissonance as "stupid and easily manipulated". Although I also tend to call Bush supporters "stupid" - all the time! - it is a way too simplistic and loaded term.

A case in point: I recently discovered that my eldest brother, whom I have always held in the highest regard as one of the smartest people on Earth (he has read THOUSANDS of books, mostly non-fiction), voted for Bush, again. WTF??????

I still feel he is one of the smartest people on Earth. But GULLIBLE, not "stupid".

I feel very strongly about use of the loaded term "stupid" - it immediately turns off MANY thinking people from giving any credence whatsoever to an article like this. Does anybody know how to get in touch with Brad Radcliffe? I really would like to share his article with others, but changing those two occurences of "stupid" to something else - any suggestions besides "gullible"? It is a bit redundant in the phrase "gullible and easily manipulated"...

[harris8]

6. kick, if I may (n/t)

[maxudargo]

7. You know, I understand you point

But I'm not sure Democrats shouldn't be more assertive in condemning those who voted for Bush this time around. Janeane Garofalo once said on the Daily Show that, "at this point, supporting Bush is a character flaw," and I think I agree with her.

Those who voted for Bush displayed an inexcusable failure of citizenship. They need to be confronted with that and challenged to be better, more responsible citizens in the future. Voting for Bush was just stupid. Smart people do stupid things sometimes, and being well-read doesn't mean you have the strength of character to separate narcissistic emotions from civic responsibilities.

I don't think we can be too forceful when it comes to criticizing the failure of the electorate on November 2. It was a disgrace. The American people need to confront the possibility that they are no longer capable of functioning as a responsible citizenry. When a man can get away with all that Bush has done without being held accountable, much less punished, then it is time to take a serious look at what kind of citizenry we have become.

America is a great nation, but are Americans still a great people? Is this generation of Americans worthy of the glorious political institutions and traditions it has inherited?

That's a very serious question, and I don't think we should fail to address it out of fear of offending those who provoke the question.