John Adams Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Good job to Bush and the Republicans and all that. I'm now 0-4 in presidential elections, having at least twice voted for major party candidates. How does this really strong Republican alliance between the less intrusive gov't and more intrusive gov't continue to exist? I'm really curious. It seems like the big tent has two factions: the Bush/Ashcroft people whose vision of American government is that it needs to provide a moral compass vs. the Guiliani/Schwarzenaeger crowd whose focus is on getting government out of our lives. I like the later bunch, but they are not in control, which is really obvious from this election, in which the Christian Republicans showed up in droves to help Bush win a solid victory. In 1992, Perot showed that schism when he ran- drawing the small gov't people out of the ranks and dividing Bush I's base. Will the Republicans ever schism between the big government moral compass types and the small government people? (BTW, I think the Democrats are really rudderless now- this was their Take back America election and they got whupped. They don't have, at the moment, one candidate they could say is the future of the party.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 (BTW, I think the Democrats are really rudderless now- this was their Take back America election and they got whupped. They don't have, at the moment, one candidate they could say is the future of the party.) 98817[/snapback] Exactly, this is why I'm so ebullient today. The Democrats have finally...>FINALLY< in my lifetime fallen to pieces. It's gonna be sweet to see that Joe Lockhart look like he ate a turd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Good job to Bush and the Republicans and all that. I'm now 0-4 in presidential elections, having at least twice voted for major party candidates. How does this really strong Republican alliance between the less intrusive gov't and more intrusive gov't continue to exist? I'm really curious. It seems like the big tent has two factions: the Bush/Ashcroft people whose vision of American government is that it needs to provide a moral compass vs. the Guiliani/Schwarzenaeger crowd whose focus is on getting government out of our lives. I like the later bunch, but they are not in control, which is really obvious from this election, in which the Christian Republicans showed up in droves to help Bush win a solid victory. In 1992, Perot showed that schism when he ran- drawing the small gov't people out of the ranks and dividing Bush I's base. Will the Republicans ever schism between the big government moral compass types and the small government people? (BTW, I think the Democrats are really rudderless now- this was their Take back America election and they got whupped. They don't have, at the moment, one candidate they could say is the future of the party.) 98817[/snapback] John I agree with you on the GOP shift so far to the right, however in the democrats attempt to take back america they ran the most liberal candidate they could find. I guess they hoped him being a practicing catholic would help with that religous group. One can only hope that a schism in both parties occurs and maybe a true centrist party or reform party can be formed, I feel that is the only hope for America. Will be interesting to hear Rudy trying to later divorce himself from Biush when the right wing sends forth their candidate in 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 Exactly, this is why I'm so ebullient today. The Democrats have finally...>FINALLY< in my lifetime fallen to pieces. It's gonna be sweet to see that Joe Lockhart look like he ate a turd. 98837[/snapback] We could easily both be jumping the gun on that prediction. Kerry was a crappy candidate- Dean would have had a better chance at winning. And in 1988, who could have predicted that the governer of Arkansas would be the next president? Maybe 2008 is the year of Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 We could easily both be jumping the gun on that prediction. Kerry was a crappy candidate- Dean would have had a better chance at winning. And in 1988, who could have predicted that the governer of Arkansas would be the next president? Maybe 2008 is the year of Obama. 98871[/snapback] It will probably be than man you mentioned in your original post. Rudy G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 It's gonna be sweet to see that Joe Lockhart look like he ate a turd. 98837[/snapback] The same as that has been his diet for years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmate Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I had the same thought about the Republican Party. The religious right brought home this election for Bush. In 2008, when there will be primaries galore, I hope the division between the liberal Republicans like Guiliani becomes paramount. I am a tried and true democrat, but certainly would consider voting for a person like Guiliani or McCain. I just don't ever see a Republican like that getting out of the primary. While I wish Kerry won, I am glad that someone got a majority of the popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 (BTW, I think the Democrats are really rudderless now- this was their Take back America election and they got whupped. They don't have, at the moment, one candidate they could say is the future of the party.) Maybe 2008 is the year of Obama. Obama needs more time on the shelf. I'd see him more likely being the candidate in 2012 or 2016. But he could be VP on the next ticket. The future of the Democrat party now lies with how deeply they are willing to assess the situation and make changes. The electorate has consistently taken care of problems for them (e.g., Gore, Daschle, Kerry), now they need to be proactive and clean house. If they want another election like this year, they won't change a thing and then will come back with Hillary in 2008. If they want a chance at winning in 2008, they will look to new and more moderate faces such as Evan Bayh. In this election, Bayh would have held the Gore states just as easily as Kerry did, but he would have won Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa as well which would have led to a lanslide win. The party of Clinton and McAuliffe needs to enter the 21st century to get back in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 Obama needs more time on the shelf. I'd see him more likely being the candidate in 2012 or 2016. But he could be VP on the next ticket. The future of the Democrat party now lies with how deeply they are willing to assess the situation and make changes. The electorate has consistently taken care of problems for them (e.g., Gore, Daschle, Kerry), now they need to be proactive and clean house. If they want another election like this year, they won't change a thing and then will come back with Hillary in 2008. If they want a chance at winning in 2008, they will look to new and more moderate faces such as Evan Bayh. In this election, Bayh would have held the Gore states just as easily as Kerry did, but he would have won Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa as well which would have led to a lanslide win. The party of Clinton and McAuliffe needs to enter the 21st century to get back in the game. 98906[/snapback] Yeah- it's a funny thing about Clinton that he wasn't that liberal on many issues. He signed into law welfare reform. He was fiscally pretty conservative, and didn't push to spend the surpluses the economoy of the 90s gave him. Clinton would have killed Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Yeah- it's a funny thing about Clinton that he wasn't that liberal on many issues. He signed into law welfare reform. He was fiscally pretty conservative, and didn't push to spend the surpluses the economoy of the 90s gave him. Clinton would have killed Bush. 98953[/snapback] Stellar analysis.... Not. Clinton was a souless prick - just like Kerry. The 1994 election and the Congress that was swept in - changed Mr. Clinton's agenda REAL fast. Clinton put Clinton first and that meant re-election at all costs. Whatever issue he needed to support to gain re-election is exactly what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 Stellar analysis.... Not. Clinton was a souless prick - just like Kerry. The 1994 election and the Congress that was swept in - changed Mr. Clinton's agenda REAL fast. Clinton put Clinton first and that meant re-election at all costs. Whatever issue he needed to support to gain re-election is exactly what he did. 99170[/snapback] There's no denying that Bill loved Bill, but there's also no denying that the current admin grew the size of govt more than Bill. Even if you don't count homeland security. That's pretty shocking- so call Clinton a liberal all you want, but the true big government guy just got reelected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Clinton was a souless prick - just like Kerry. The 1994 election and the Congress that was swept in - changed Mr. Clinton's agenda REAL fast. Clinton put Clinton first and that meant re-election at all costs. Whatever issue he needed to support to gain re-election is exactly what he did. 99170[/snapback] Bingo. Clinton didn't want to be president to lead America. Clinton wanted to be president to get famous, get rich, and to get chicks (not necessarily in that order). He took polls and told us lemmings whatever we wanted to hear to get re-elected. His charisma also went a long way with the hotpockets crowd to get re-elected because Dole was about as exciting as two old people in their 80's doing the hibbity-jibbity. If it was Bush Jr instead of Dole in that election, I doubt seriously if Clinton is re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 .... How does this really strong Republican alliance between the less intrusive gov't and more intrusive gov't continue to exist? I'm really curious. It seems like the big tent has two factions: the Bush/Ashcroft people whose vision of American government is that it needs to provide a moral compass vs. the Guiliani/Schwarzenaeger crowd whose focus is on getting government out of our lives. ...... 98817[/snapback] I agree about the split in the GOP between the neocons & paleocons, but I would not classify Rudy/Arnie in the paleo con world. It's impossible for them to be Buchananites coming from NY/CA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Stellar analysis.... Not. Clinton was a souless prick - just like Kerry. The 1994 election and the Congress that was swept in - changed Mr. Clinton's agenda REAL fast. Clinton put Clinton first and that meant re-election at all costs. Whatever issue he needed to support to gain re-election is exactly what he did. 99170[/snapback] Clinton BAD! haha *yawn* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 Bingo. Clinton didn't want to be president to lead America. Clinton wanted to be president to get famous, get rich, and to get chicks (not necessarily in that order). He took polls and told us lemmings whatever we wanted to hear to get re-elected. His charisma also went a long way with the hotpockets crowd to get re-elected because Dole was about as exciting as two old people in their 80's doing the hibbity-jibbity. If it was Bush Jr instead of Dole in that election, I doubt seriously if Clinton is re-elected. 99200[/snapback] I preferred Dole over Clinton; I wouldn't vote for George Bush Jr. if you and Scott were running against him. Clinton was not the divider Bush is; I can't imagine Clinton losing the undecideds to Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Clinton BAD! haha *yawn* 99221[/snapback] I wish I could say I was laughing on election eve 1994, but I was too busy crying those tears of joy. Support Bill all you want - he was the BEST thing that ever happened to the Republican Party. He single handedly delivered a Republican majority for at least a generation.... But hey, he got re-elected! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Good job to Bush and the Republicans and all that. I'm now 0-4 in presidential elections, having at least twice voted for major party candidates. How does this really strong Republican alliance between the less intrusive gov't and more intrusive gov't continue to exist? I'm really curious. It seems like the big tent has two factions: the Bush/Ashcroft people whose vision of American government is that it needs to provide a moral compass vs. the Guiliani/Schwarzenaeger crowd whose focus is on getting government out of our lives. I like the later bunch, but they are not in control, which is really obvious from this election, in which the Christian Republicans showed up in droves to help Bush win a solid victory. In 1992, Perot showed that schism when he ran- drawing the small gov't people out of the ranks and dividing Bush I's base. Will the Republicans ever schism between the big government moral compass types and the small government people? (BTW, I think the Democrats are really rudderless now- this was their Take back America election and they got whupped. They don't have, at the moment, one candidate they could say is the future of the party.) 98817[/snapback] Brokaw, guest on Imus's show commented this morning that in his travels, he perceived that religious Americans felt that the Dem's have for some times denigrated and mocked them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Brokaw, guest on Imus's show commented this morning that in his travels, he perceived that religious Americans felt that the Dem's have for some times denigrated and mocked them. 99261[/snapback] HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... and I perceive the sun rises in the East. Thanks Tom. Can't wait for more earth shaking insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Clinton was not the divider Bush is; America didn't get attacked on its own soil on Clinton's clock. Well...not literally, anyway. You can't compare the two. You have no idea what Clinton would have done had he been president during a 9/11-type attack. I don't know why people seem to forget that we were attacked early on in Bush's presidency. It's like we've completely forgotten the effect it had on the economy...jobs lost...the wars we wage.' (Ding! Woops, there's the microwave. Gotta go.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 America didn't get attacked on its own soil on Clinton's clock. Well...not literally, anyway. You can't compare the two. You have no idea what Clinton would have done had he been president during a 9/11-type attack. I don't know why people seem to forget that we were attacked early on in Bush's presidency. It's like we've completely forgotten the effect it had on the economy...jobs lost...the wars we wage.' (Ding! Woops, there's the microwave. Gotta go.) 99286[/snapback] Actually...the did try to blow up the WTC with a truck bomb the first time. And one could argue that bombing naval ships and embassies are tantamount to attacking American soil. Clinton's response? 'Look at the breasts on that bimbo.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts