Benjamin Franklin Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 The speakers represent the views of many Republicans more than the candidate. It's sad that the prime time speakers, who actually believe in limited government and have a record that shows it, are so disconnected from Bush's governance. I agree with the "bait and switch" criticisms of this convention. The Republicans are putting on a face at the convention that is not representative of their platform or candidate. I understand that the Republicans want to say they are a "big tent" party, and that's why McCain, Guiliani, Arnold, and Pataki are the prime time speakers-- but how big is the tent when the people speaking are basically outside the tent when it comes to power and decision making. Let's just hope that those speakers are the future of the Republican party, and the 2008 candidate is one of them, not another Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 The speakers represent the views of many Republicans more than the candidate. It's sad that the prime time speakers, who actually believe in limited government and have a record that shows it, are so disconnected from Bush's governance. I agree with the "bait and switch" criticisms of this convention. The Republicans are putting on a face at the convention that is not representative of their platform or candidate. I understand that the Republicans want to say they are a "big tent" party, and that's why McCain, Guiliani, Arnold, and Pataki are the prime time speakers-- but how big is the tent when the people speaking are basically outside the tent when it comes to power and decision making. Let's just hope that those speakers are the future of the Republican party, and the 2008 candidate is one of them, not another Bush. 12740[/snapback] It is not that we need limited government, but reduced, RESPONSIBLE government. Limited government in my eyes means a system in which people rich in power and money get fat, and are not checked properly. Reduced, responsible government means forcing a balanced budget, eliminating sections of the government that have become unwieldy, reforming health care, cleaning up Social Security, and having the SEC actually DO A BETTER JOB in watching for corporate abuse! The future of the Republican party should be someone who gets away from the divisive 'side-show' issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and actually has a good plan for the cleanup of our government, while leading us to a foreign policy that will make us a shining beacon in the world, and not an iron hammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 The speakers represent the views of many Republicans more than the candidate. It's sad that the prime time speakers, who actually believe in limited government and have a record that shows it, are so disconnected from Bush's governance. I agree with the "bait and switch" criticisms of this convention. The Republicans are putting on a face at the convention that is not representative of their platform or candidate. I understand that the Republicans want to say they are a "big tent" party, and that's why McCain, Guiliani, Arnold, and Pataki are the prime time speakers-- but how big is the tent when the people speaking are basically outside the tent when it comes to power and decision making. Let's just hope that those speakers are the future of the Republican party, and the 2008 candidate is one of them, not another Bush. 12740[/snapback] I'm not sure that I understood your post properly. Are you saying that those four speakers (pataki, et. al.) believe in limited government and have a record that shows it? If so.......................................................................... If not, what speakers are you typing about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 The speakers represent the views of many Republicans more than the candidate. It's sad that the prime time speakers, who actually believe in limited government and have a record that shows it, are so disconnected from Bush's governance. I agree with the "bait and switch" criticisms of this convention. The Republicans are putting on a face at the convention that is not representative of their platform or candidate. I understand that the Republicans want to say they are a "big tent" party, and that's why McCain, Guiliani, Arnold, and Pataki are the prime time speakers-- but how big is the tent when the people speaking are basically outside the tent when it comes to power and decision making. Let's just hope that those speakers are the future of the Republican party, and the 2008 candidate is one of them, not another Bush. 12740[/snapback] First you say that the speakers "represent the views of many Repbulicans" then you say, in reference to Rebpulicans, that the "convention is not representative of their platform". I'm a little confused. Second, I hope you understand that the conventions also constitute another part of the campaigning. Of course they are going to have Arnold, McCain and others, because they appeal to the independent and swing votes. They are still Republicans, right? They still support GW for president, right? Finally, you only mention 4 speakers. What about the others? What about the DNC? They used the exact same strategy that the RNC is using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I agree with the "bait and switch" criticisms of this convention. The Republicans are putting on a face at the convention that is not representative of their platform or candidate. This is a tried and true technique of BOTH parties the closer you get to Erection Day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 First you say that the speakers "represent the views of many Repbulicans" then you say, in reference to Rebpulicans, that the "convention is not representative of their platform". I'm a little confused. Second, I hope you understand that the conventions also constitute another part of the campaigning. Of course they are going to have Arnold, McCain and others, because they appeal to the independent and swing votes. They are still Republicans, right? They still support GW for president, right? Finally, you only mention 4 speakers. What about the others? What about the DNC? They used the exact same strategy that the RNC is using. 12787[/snapback] They used the exact same strategy that the RNC is using. Yes, but it's okay when the Democrats do it. C'mon, man, get with the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Basically, it is smart politics for both parties to run to the center from the start of their convention to the election. The Democrats did it which is why there was so much on Kerry and his service record, it edges him to the right. The Republicans are doing the same thing. I think though that this is one election where the key isn't going to be to grab the few undecideds out there. Turnout will be the key as it usually is in close campaigns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 First you say that the speakers "represent the views of many Repbulicans" then you say, in reference to Rebpulicans, that the "convention is not representative of their platform". I'm a little confused. Second, I hope you understand that the conventions also constitute another part of the campaigning. Of course they are going to have Arnold, McCain and others, because they appeal to the independent and swing votes. They are still Republicans, right? They still support GW for president, right? Finally, you only mention 4 speakers. What about the others? What about the DNC? They used the exact same strategy that the RNC is using. 12787[/snapback] My language confused you, but it was accurate. The speakers "represent the views of many Republicans" who believe that the federal government shouldn't legislate on issues like gay marriage, gay benefits, abortion litmus tests for judges, and stem cell research. (to name a few- Guiliani in particular is also for licensing all guns). Thus, the convention speakers are "not representititve of the platform," which has planks to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, deny civil union benefits, litmus test judges on abortion, and ban stem cell research. My post is about the RNC. Without digressing too far into the DNC, they had VERY liberal speakers like Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Sharpton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 My language confused you, but it was accurate. The speakers "represent the views of many Republicans" who believe that the federal government shouldn't legislate on issues like gay marriage, gay benefits, abortion litmus tests for judges, and stem cell research. (to name a few- Guiliani in particular is also for licensing all guns). Thus, the convention speakers are "not representititve of the platform," which has planks to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, deny civil union benefits, litmus test judges on abortion, and ban stem cell research. My post is about the RNC. Without digressing too far into the DNC, they had VERY liberal speakers like Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Sharpton. 13192[/snapback] Campaign like libertarians, govern like liberals. Love those Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 Campaign like libertarians, govern like liberals. Love those Republicans. 13213[/snapback] What's sadder is that people like this Libertarian talk from the speakers, and it will draw people to vote for socialist Bush. Grr. I can't believe he's going to win again, but he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 What's sadder is that people like this Libertarian talk from the speakers, and it will draw people to vote for socialist Bush. Grr. I can't believe he's going to win again, but he is. 13421[/snapback] Bush is Socialist? What is Kerry, Fascist?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 My language confused you, but it was accurate. The speakers "represent the views of many Republicans" who believe that the federal government shouldn't legislate on issues like gay marriage, gay benefits, abortion litmus tests for judges, and stem cell research. (to name a few- Guiliani in particular is also for licensing all guns). Thus, the convention speakers are "not representititve of the platform," which has planks to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, deny civil union benefits, litmus test judges on abortion, and ban stem cell research. My post is about the RNC. Without digressing too far into the DNC, they had VERY liberal speakers like Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Sharpton. 13192[/snapback] Sorry, but you are making a rather general opinion of the "view of many Republicans" if you think there isn't a large contingent in favor of legislation limiting gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research. I am in favor of all of those as are the majority of Republicans that I know. I completely disagree with you on this assertion. I realize your post is about the RNC, but you have to realize, as I and others have pointed out, that this happens on both sides and it is part of the campaign. These 4 speakers you mentioned help attract the votes of some Republicans that may not agree with GW on everything and may be on the fence. It would be stupid for the RNC to ignore them. Your point about the very liberal speakers is correct, but what did they speak about? Their messages were extremely toned down (except for Sharpton). The entire DNC sought to create a conservative, centralized democratic party. You would not have guessed by watching the DNC that John Kerry is the most liberal senator. Both parties do it. I'm not sure I always like it, but if Arnold, McCain and others motivate some swing votes to GW then in the end its all right with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 You would not have guessed by watching the DNC that John Kerry is the most liberal senator.13454[/snapback] Not to nitpick, but you know, if you wouldn't have guessed it, there's an even better reason: it's not true. Anyway, one has to wonder if by reaching out to swing voters with Giuliani, McCain, Pataki and Bloomberg, the GOP isn't just sacrificing as many votes from wingnuts who would be appalled at the idea of sucking up to such LIBERALS. One of Bush's biggest fears is that the right-wingers who stayed home to spite his daddy in 1992 will do so again. So it's kind of a catch-22 for him. Assuage the base, alienate the middle. Play to the middle, piss off the base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 Bush is Socialist? What is Kerry, Fascist?? 13430[/snapback] No. He's a socialist too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 Sorry, but you are making a rather general opinion of the "view of many Republicans" if you think there isn't a large contingent in favor of legislation limiting gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research. I am in favor of all of those as are the majority of Republicans that I know. I completely disagree with you on this assertion. I realize your post is about the RNC, but you have to realize, as I and others have pointed out, that this happens on both sides and it is part of the campaign. These 4 speakers you mentioned help attract the votes of some Republicans that may not agree with GW on everything and may be on the fence. It would be stupid for the RNC to ignore them. Your point about the very liberal speakers is correct, but what did they speak about? Their messages were extremely toned down (except for Sharpton). The entire DNC sought to create a conservative, centralized democratic party. You would not have guessed by watching the DNC that John Kerry is the most liberal senator. Both parties do it. I'm not sure I always like it, but if Arnold, McCain and others motivate some swing votes to GW then in the end its all right with me. 13454[/snapback] You're right. It's probably true that "most" Republicans favor governmental control of the people. Maybe I should have said "many" or a "large number" do not. Former Republican KRC and maybe VaBills are the people to whom I refer when I say that there are many Republicans who wish the Party would actually be *for* limited, not growing, government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 No. He's a socialist too. 13481[/snapback] Really? I once saw this movie called Dumb and Dumber. It's replaying this November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 You're right. It's probably true that "most" Republicans favor governmental control of the people. Maybe I should have said "many" or a "large number" do not. Former Republican KRC and maybe VaBills are the people to whom I refer when I say that there are many Republicans who wish the Party would actually be *for* limited, not growing, government. 13490[/snapback] I HATE the fact that the right Republicans want to regulate my SOCIAL life through legislation, and want to deregulate everything else. This is intolerable, for the freedom of America means that if I want to gamble with my money, or buy an adult movie, THEN I SHOULD BE ABLE TO, for all of these things are PERSONAL choices that adults SHOULD be able to make. Freedom is not merely a PARTIAL idea.... you can't advocate a nation without gun control, and refuse people the right to bet on football games, or play blackjack with REAL MONEY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 I HATE the fact that the right Republicans want to regulate my SOCIAL life through legislation, and want to deregulate everything else. This is intolerable, for the freedom of America means that if I want to gamble with my money, or buy an adult movie, THEN I SHOULD BE ABLE TO, for all of these things are PERSONAL choices that adults SHOULD be able to make. Freedom is not merely a PARTIAL idea.... you can't advocate a nation without gun control, and refuse people the right to bet on football games, or play blackjack with REAL MONEY. 13506[/snapback] I feel your pain brother. Only don't give the Republicans too much credit. They want to control more than social issues. They want to tax at unprecedented rates and regulate commerce and business with an iron fist- please don't buy into their lines spending less- IT IS NOT TRUE! Bush has spent more- even discounting inflation- than any administration in history. And that is true even if you discount the increase in anti-terror spending. The link for that info about the spending escapes me, but it was discussed for a few weeks here several months ago. If someone thinks I'm full of it, I'll redig it up. I think it came from the CATO institute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts