Republicans Defect To Kerry

Here in heavily Republican central Pennsylvania, Carol Sprecher, a registered Republican who votes like an independent, looked disbelievingly at the television as John F. Kerry finished his acceptance speech. "I'm a little surprised," she said. "I kind of liked him." http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080104C.shtml

•  Oh.

  I'm sure that'll work out just great.

  by Kagro X on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 03:23:41 PM PDT

  •  I'm curious...

    ...is your comment meant to be sarcastic?  Or genuine?

    If you're being genuine, then I'll agree with you.  Kerry/Edwards needs as much organized political, financial and logistical support as possible right now.  This group, if indeed it is more than just another excuse to send email forwards to each other (god, the terrible NeoPagan lists I'm on right now, but thats way OT), could provide effective outreach to a completely ignored segment of the American population.  A mostly well-educated, intelligent part of the population that -votes-, for that matter.  One that takes issues of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion very seriously.

    If you're being sarcastic, I can only assume it is because of popular misconceptions (read: often outright lies) about the Pagan community.  Pagans are not satanists.  Satanists are not pagans.  We do not practice animal or human sacrifice.  Etcetera.  I think you would find the results of little basic research on the subject to be illuminating.  

    As for whether the publicity of such a group supporting Kerry/Edwards is a good or a bad thing, all I can say is that we've fought off bullshit non-news stories in the past, and we can do so again.

    by creativedissonance on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 03:43:59 PM PDT

    •  Oh.

      As for whether the publicity of such a group supporting Kerry/Edwards is a good or a bad thing, all I can say is that we've fought off bullshit non-news stories in the past, and we can do so again.

      I'm sure that'll work out just great.

      by Kagro X on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 03:47:47 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      "If you're being sarcastic, I can only assume it is because of popular misconceptions (read: often outright lies) about the Pagan community.  Pagans are not satanists.  Satanists are not pagans.  We do not practice animal or human sacrifice.  Etcetera.  I think you would find the results of little basic research on the subject to be illuminating."

      I doubt somewhat the poster (or most Kossacks) holds those misconceptions. But plenty of others out there do, and that's probably what he was referring to. Even if it is a bullshit story, it's the kind of thing that right-wingers salivate over.

      by soultaco on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 04:00:54 PM PDT

      •  so then...

        "Even if it is a bullshit story, it's the kind of thing that right-wingers salivate over."

        ...are we advocating not seeking out the support of a politically active, motivated, left-leaning segment of the American population based on what the right-wingers think?

        We should try and get the Republicans to adopt that sort of thinking.  Maybe then we could get the fundamentalist Christian influence out of Washington.

        by creativedissonance on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 04:04:55 PM PDT

      •  So that means what...

        So that means we should only organize demographic groups the right wing approves of?

        by Rob on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 04:07:48 PM PDT

      •  so

        Somebody should form a Pagans for Bush group.  A lot of pagans fall into that category, especially around Beltane.

        by Sedge on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 04:13:19 PM PDT

    •  I can't speak for Kargo X...

      ...but I get the idea of people doing a Democrat Dance or some lame calling quarters / invoke the goddess / share the feast ritual and thinking that they've done a ton for the party.

      That and whining about how misunderstood they are.

      Better to approach the problem analytically. Recall:

      Definition: Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.

      Postulate: ANY required change may be effected by the application of the proper kind and degree of Force in the proper manner, through the proper medium to the proper object.

      Consider then: what is the proper medium? One's voice and actions. What is the proper object? The voting public. What is the proper kind and degree of force? Experience suggests that it is selling one's candidate to the general public, rather than selling one's religion to the campaign, that contributes more toward the goal of electing the candidate.

      Of course, if your purpose is really to sell neo-paganism, or at least tolerance of neo-paganism, to the Kerry camp, then you may be doing the right thing. But be honest about your purpose and goals, at least to yourself.

      by maxomai on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 04:34:39 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        'whining how misunderstood...'

        I referred to how lame most online Pagan email lists can be.  I'm not attempting to glorify the group, per se.

        I'm saying that -IF- the group is something other than a bunch of pointless forwards and nattering, and is indeed a way to focus and organize a frequently scattered and chaotic segment of people, it is something that should not be ignored.

        if it is indeed YAPPG (yet another pointless pagan group) then by all means, yawn away.

        by creativedissonance on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:25:51 PM PDT

        •  Well sure...

          ...nothing that gets results will be ignored. But you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical of whether this will get results.

          by maxomai on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 06:51:11 PM PDT

          •  Have to try

            You can't get results without trying. The Bush campaign has targeted every group even down to groups that have only a few hundred thousand people nationwide. A group of 1 to 5 million people is a sizable group in a close election.  

            by Rob on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 07:08:50 PM PDT

  •  to those who rated this a '4'

    I'd love to hear why you think this comment is an 'excellent' addition to discourse here at dKos.

    by creativedissonance on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 04:01:23 PM PDT

    •  Well la-de-da.

      I'd love to hear why you think you're entitled to know.

      by Kagro X on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 04:34:15 PM PDT

      •  not entitled...

        ..but interested.

        and people answered.

        by creativedissonance on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:14:35 PM PDT

        •  People answered, but you didn't.

          But I'll bite nonetheless: why are you interested?

          by Kagro X on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:37:53 PM PDT

          •  because on many other sites...

            ...'provocative' and 'funny' comments run the risk of getting modded -1 flamebait, depending on the slant of the site in question.

            people here thought it was 'excellent'.  Above, I asked for clarification as to what you meant in your comment.  I didn't get any.  Instead, I got more 'provocative' and 'funny', which people also uprated.

            Additionally, I've gotten some pretty defensive responses from you (la de da), which even others have found worth a couple of four ratings.

            Me, I don't really care about the ratings per se, but I do care about what the comments were intended to mean, how they were interpreted, etc.  I was attempting to start a conversation, not get involved in a sarcasm-laced standup routine.

            To each their own...

            by creativedissonance on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 09:30:57 PM PDT

            •  Me, I don't care about the ratings per se.

              But I like to discuss them extensively, and analyze their motivation and relative value.

              Please, don't pull the psych student's "defensiveness" trick on me. It's silly.

              I think you know very well what my comment meant, and if my second "provocative" and "funny" comment didn't clear it up for you, I can't help.

              I wasn't attempting to start a conversation. Not everything I have to say is intended to spark a national, soul-searching dialogue. If other people found the comment "provocative" and "funny," then so much the better. We could all use it. Some more than others.

              by Kagro X on Tue Jul 27, 2004 at 01:25:55 AM PDT

    •  It was funny

      and provocative.

      An "excellent" addition to the discourse doesn't necessarily have to be an addition to the discourse that you agree with.

      by Smedley Hirkum on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:09:25 PM PDT

•  I'm sure

  that this will be an SCLM headline story by 5:00 tomorrow.    

  by movie buff on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 03:28:39 PM PDT

  •  Drudge has already got the siren out n/t

    by soultaco on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 03:31:49 PM PDT

•  Oh for crying out loud

  You'd think someone just announced the formation of "Sex Offenders for Kerry" or something.

  Are we not the party of open-mindedness, and is not intolerance and bigotry the cherished hallmark of the Republicans?  Let's act like it, then.

  Here in the Pacific Northwest, land of Ernest Callenbach and Tom Robbins, we have a significant Earth-centered religious contingent. When they vote in large numbers, Democrats in Oregon, Washington, upper California and even Alaska win statewide.  We should welcome their support.

  What--you say there might be some worried Christians in the heartland who think "pagan" is a dirty word?  So what! It's not as if there's anything actually wrong with Earth-centered religion. Kerry actively seeks the latino vote; do people worry that he will be perceived as therefore latino himself?

  by AdmiralNaismith on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 04:57:18 PM PDT