[quote]rainjack wrote:
I don’t necessarily think that is a good thing. It makes the right fat and lazy. We hardly have a coherent message right now - I’d hate to think how muddled it could get if we don’t even have to try. [/quote]
Yeah, we’d just have two completely ineffectual parties, then.
[quote]jacross wrote:
On the contrary, it seems Bush is finally doing something right. You should have voted for Badnarik.
Libertarian[/quote]
Sadly, even though Im a libertarian, I made the mistake of voting for the lesser of two evils when I voted for Bush, even though I knew he wasnt going to be a small gov’t conservative. I just felt like voting for Badnarik was pointless (which, I know, is stupid) and the prospect of Kerry as president scared the hell out of me.
Im regretting it big time though; considering Bush has spent more money on social programs than any other president since LBJ, I doubt Kerry would have been any worse. At least if Kerry had been elected, the legislative and executive would have been at odds with eachother…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I don’t have a link. But I referenced a poll in another thread awhile back that showed Guiliani beating Cankles by 6 or 7 points, and Condi in a dead heet with the ever congenial Ms. Clinton.
My interpretation of it is that the Dem’s golden girl will be beat by anyone the Republicans send against her.
I don’t necessarily think that is a good thing. It makes the right fat and lazy. We hardly have a coherent message right now - I’d hate to think how muddled it could get if we don’t even have to try.
While I admit that I almost gag whenever I see her picture, don’t underestimate Hillary Clinton!
Elections are won and lost based upon the actual campaign and how effective that it’s run. She is surrounded by battle tested advisors left over from her husbands Presidential days. She has also been through two elections and I don’t think she was sitting back baking cookies when the strategy sessions took place.
A few other things: She is female and some moderate republican females might very well cross party lines to side with their own gender. In addtion to that she now passing her self off as a more moderate politician which can only help her in the long run.
Now for the good news: I wouldn’t say it’s a cake walk for her. I think the real advantage that republicans have is that Hillary will be in a blood bath just to get the democratic nomination. Edwards, Kerry, Gore and a host of other heavy hitters (for the dems at least) will attempt to stop her at every point. [/quote]
Yes, but the difference between Hillary and Bill is one of conviction and political savvy. Bill had no conviction whatsoever other than to his own well-being and political aspirations. He was, and is, a true politician. However, Hillary has deep convictions and will let them fly from her mouth if pushed hard enough in a debate situation. Then, the country will see just how scary her ideas really are and just how communist, I mean leftist, she really is. I think she is her own worst enemy.
One thing to keep in mind is; think about all the crap that Bush has had to deal with. 911 and the most major hurricanes to affect the US in recent history. Now think about how any other candidate in the past would have done under these circumstances. With that in mind I don’t think Bush has done any worse than anyone else would have.
I’m also glad that they are getting back to the business of cutting waste and getting the budget under control.
rainjack wrote:
I don’t have a link. But I referenced a poll in another thread awhile back that showed Guiliani beating Cankles by 6 or 7 points, and Condi in a dead heet with the ever congenial Ms. Clinton.
My interpretation of it is that the Dem’s golden girl will be beat by anyone the Republicans send against her.
Rainjack,
I saw that poll also. The problem with it is that it is a poll of who would win a national election. McCain And Guiliani did win in that poll, but does anyone really think that they could win the Republican primary? The real power-brokers in the party are Dobson, Robertson, and the other holy-rollers. McCain is too moderate for the far right. Guiliani is pro-gay rights, and his personality and personal life seem unlikely to appeal to the christian base. I think that they would both win a national election against whomever the Dems roll out, but I doubt that either will get nomination from their own party. I also wonder about how strongly the Southern states would support a black female for president…maybe we’ll find out in '08.
Regret the vote of Bush? No.
Consider the alternatives.
I am not a libertarian and certainly not a Green, so third party alternatives would have been a kooky vote for me.
And while I have my criticisms of Bush - and they are many - would a Democrat, any Democrat, do a better job in my view? One argument could be made that getting Kerry as president with a Republican Congress would be a fiscally conservative move. Perhaps, but foreign policy is a really big deal right now, and overweights to the executive branch. Whatever ‘conservatizing’ effect a Kerry/Republican Congress might have had on domestic/fiscal affairs, the price of a Kerry foreign policy, in my view, is too steep a cost for it.
So, no, no regrets. But the GOP has work to do.
Bush has screwed us over in the area of foreign policy. I’ve tried to talk to as many international people as i could about bush and they hate him worse than we do. Do you think the conflict in Iraq has made us popular around the world? In Europe? In the Arab countries where angry guys w/ turban train thousands of terrorists and insurgents a year?
The result of all of this is reduced political capital to do anything at all effectively, even England is taking heat for supporting us in Iraq and rightfully so IMO.
Would Gore have went into Afghanistan and tried to kick bin laden’s ass like bush did? Im sure of it , he’s a blue blooded american like just about everybody else in T-mag.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
There’s absolutely no way that there’s any accuracy to that unless it’s taken for granted that the democrats will not articulate anything between now and then. Since they’ve basically said nothing so far, the ball remains in their court to put forth polices less favorable than Bush’s, continue to say nothing and just criticize, or…do something spectacular. I vote for spectacular. But any articulate, common-sense, well-reasoned, and reasonably appealing policies would be fine.[/quote]
I have never believed polls to be worth a crap. I’ve said as much many times.
The problem with the left is that the party has been taken hostage by the radical, George Soros, MMoore, MoveOn.org crowd. I don’t think they speak for the center of the party. But those are the voices you hear. Reid, Pelosi, et al, are scared shitless to piss off the money bags. That is the weakness of the left.
The problem is that they might very well be articulating the crap out of their message - but it is a message that no one but the extreme left wants to hear. Democrats need a message that people can vote for - not against.
Election results - in spite of G-Dubs guffaws - tend to bare this out - and that is the only real poll that matters.
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Bush has screwed us over in the area of foreign policy. I’ve tried to talk to as many international people as i could about bush and they hate him worse than we do. Do you think the conflict in Iraq has made us popular around the world? In Europe? In the Arab countries where angry guys w/ turban train thousands of terrorists and insurgents a year?[/quote]
I talk to a lot of folks abroad as well. But here is the thing - the measure of a foreign policy is not whether it is popular around the world. I was in Europe when the US intervened in the Kosovo/Bosnia situation, and there were protests even then.
As for Arab countries, there is no polite way to say this - why would we care what a backwater barbarian state that has a completely illiberal government has to say about our foreign policy?
But who has stopped trading with us? Who is no longer working with us? German voters ousted famous America-insulter Schroeder; Blair and Howard of Australia were re-elected. Rumors of the decline of American prestige are greatly exaggerated.
[quote]Would Gore have went into Afghanistan and tried to kick bin laden’s ass like bush did? Im sure of it , he’s a blue blooded american like just about everybody else in T-mag.
[/quote]
I think Gore probably would have gone into Afghanistan, but I don’t think he would taken a serious, long-term approach to calling the enemy by its name and waging a sustained war against it.
And, I am not sure if you saw your mistake - I think you meant ‘red-blooded’. ‘Blue blooded’, while an accurate description of Gore, means of aristocratic stock, not ballsy and macho.
Wow, I can’t believe how many people actually swallowed the “flip-flop” line so solidly that they are still using it.
Thunder:
I didnt explain my points clearly enough i’ll try again:
WW1 , WW2 , Korean war , vietnam war, all of these were popular in their day even considering international opinions, w/ the exception of the vietnam war and that was when things went bad and fighting became an end rather than a means to an end.
a. America
b. Afghanistan
c. Iraq
A. Gore and Kerry would have bitch slapped the CIA and FBI in the face like they needed and reformed everything just as bush did. By keeping america’s intelligence agencies and the dept of homeland security AND international relations good ( meaning that again the turban’d arabs won’t send fighters over to our land ) AND by fighting terror overseas when needed, we will prevail on this front.
B. Afghanistan - they refused to hand over bin laden so we took over their country. This sends a message out to other terrorists that if they try anything on such a massive scale as 9/11 again that their own people will ultimately lose. Less soldiers in your back yard = happy arabs = less dead arabs
C. Iraq HOWEVER , has destabilized the middle east. Seriously, no matter how much bush wants to make it a nice country it won’t happen. As soon as we leave they will have a civil war, a lot like vietnam they even have other countries aiding in this conflict i mean who wouldnt want iraq as their puppet territory if they offer security? The conflict in iraq has resulted in the training and creation of numerous amounts of insurgents and now al queda gets a legitimate job to do in the eyes of everyman-arab,which is to kick us out.
See? Bush did good on the first two but we have basically agreed that Gore and later kerry would have done the same things. Iraq is the difference in our arguement which i dont and can’t see Gore/Kerry engaging in.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Wow, I can’t believe how many people actually swallowed the “flip-flop” line so solidly that they are still using it.
[/quote]
It’s amazing to me how thinktards can overlook the fact that Kerry was whoever his audience dictated hime to be. Call it what you want - but Kerry changed his tune more often than he changed his underwear.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Wow, I can’t believe how many people actually swallowed the “flip-flop” line so solidly that they are still using it.
[/quote]
Can you instead show a clear political ideology for Mr. Kerry?
And, aren’t you Canadian?
Rainjack, you are simply quoting the republican talking points, built based on an extremely long voting record. What a crock.
The man explained his positions and why he cast votes that would appear to be contradictory to those who could not be bothered to listen to him, but of course, those folks didn’t listen.
Big surprise. I guess their mouths are bigger than their ears?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, you are simply quoting the republican talking points, built based on an extremely long voting record. What a crock.[/quote]
No - I’m not. I made thise words up myself. Unlike your MoveOn.org recitations. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - holy cow.
Excuses are like assholes - everyone has one. Making excuses is usually the sign of a guilty man. Besides - I heard Kerry was in favor of Harriet Miers’ nomination. It can only mean that he is indeed guilty of being a flip-flopper.
And as of late it seems everything is bigger than you thought processing center.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
There’s absolutely no way that there’s any accuracy to that unless it’s taken for granted that the democrats will not articulate anything between now and then. Since they’ve basically said nothing so far, the ball remains in their court to put forth polices less favorable than Bush’s, continue to say nothing and just criticize, or…do something spectacular. I vote for spectacular. But any articulate, common-sense, well-reasoned, and reasonably appealing policies would be fine.
I have never believed polls to be worth a crap. I’ve said as much many times.
The problem with the left is that the party has been taken hostage by the radical, George Soros, MMoore, MoveOn.org crowd. I don’t think they speak for the center of the party. But those are the voices you hear. Reid, Pelosi, et al, are scared shitless to piss off the money bags. That is the weakness of the left.
The problem is that they might very well be articulating the crap out of their message - but it is a message that no one but the extreme left wants to hear. Democrats need a message that people can vote for - not against.
[/quote]
Very good point but you could say the same thing for the right. But where does it go from here? Will the moderate Americans have a say again or will American politics always be controlled by the radicals? Has it always been this way? Is it a function of a two party system, or something unique to today’s society?
[quote]elars21 wrote:
Very good point but you could say the same thing for the right. But where does it go from here? Will the moderate Americans have a say again or will American politics always be controlled by the radicals? Has it always been this way? Is it a function of a two party system, or something unique to today’s society?[/quote]
I guess you could make the same argument for the right, as they are getting quite muddled in their message - although I think it applies more to the center than it does for the republican base.
But in 2004, the dems ran on the ABB platform, and they lost. People want to vote FOR a candidate - not against. The Republicans, at the very least, gave the voter something to vote for.
I think more people voted against Bush, than voted FOR Kerry, and it still wasn’t enough to win the election.
If the right refuses to listen to its base - not the fringe-right/Ann Coulter wing - but the true conservative base that is fueling the conservative movement, they will find themselves in the same seat that the dismembered left is sitting in now.
another thing that the right needs to start doing is start acting like real conservatives, and stop all the pork barrel crap. Stop trying to get along, and start leading. Stop giving the gang of 14 any credance and start ramming shit through.
To answer your question - in congressional politics - I think the center is an over valued group of spineless lemmings that are as fickle as they are undecided. Politics is local, and the right should run on the right. In presidential politics, you can’t win without the center. The left has historically ran to the right of the party-line, and the right has tended to veer towards the left.
[quote]elars21 wrote:
Very good point but you could say the same thing for the right. But where does it go from here? Will the moderate Americans have a say again or will American politics always be controlled by the radicals? Has it always been this way? Is it a function of a two party system, or something unique to today’s society?[/quote]
I think the growth of the Evangelical movement and its entry into politics in this country has something to do with it. Arguably, letting the pols draw their own congressional districts is a factor here too. With so many safe districts, it is less important for politicians to take anything like a moderate stance.
Let us not forget the failure to increase funding or resources for ‘America’s real heroes’, the soldiers that he sends off war. Before anybody gets upset and notes that Iraq and Afghan veterans are being taken care of, I will agree that yes, I (and others like me are being taken care of, it has been at the expense of many, many others. In fact, two of the seven schedules of veterans normally eligible for VA sevices have had their care suspended. The best part of this is that Bush and Rummie still like to run around the country and smile and wave in front of groups of PERFECTLY multi-racial/sex soldiers talking about how they will be taken care of, when they know full well that they won’t. It would stand to reason that if you are involved in two wars (no, Iraq is not part of the ‘War on Terror’) that create about 90,000 new war veterans each year, you also have to plan for an increase in funding to take care of them. Obviously, I am wrong. Just a thought
[quote]vroom wrote:
Wow, I can’t believe how many people actually swallowed the “flip-flop” line so solidly that they are still using it.
[/quote]
Even Beltway Democrats concede that Kerry’s biggest problem was an inability to commit to issues. The frustrating part, they say, is that since the election, Kerry has come out much more resolutely on issues than he ever did before November 2004 and they want to know - why didn’t he do that when the votes were on the line?
Whether this helps him take a shot at 2008 remains to be seen, but was Kerry a flip-flopper?
Yep. That wasn’t his only problem, but it sure didn’t help.