OGTEleven Posted November 3, 2004 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] While I generally agree that Bush has not done enough to limit spending, I think there are more things in play than you mention. First and foremost is terrorism/Iraq/Islamo-fascism. I think anyone that believes this is an important issue would have to reluctantly table their concerns in the other areas. To me the differences in approach to this problem were profound and favored Bush overwhelmingly. I was likely not alone in my opinion on this matter. Weighing this against "sending a message" on fiscal conservatism was not difficult. There was no evidence in Kerry's record that he'd be any more fiscally conservative than Bush anyway. Quite the contrary. Next, the opportunities for Bush to limit spending are squelched from many angles. First, Congress spends the money. Bush could certainly do A LOT more to provide better guidance here. Also however, there are still many "third rail" topics when it comes to spending cuts. Social Security is the most obvious. Any change at all would be spun out of control and quite possibly cost a candidate the election. That is our fault, not the candidate's. There are other areas as well. A better use of the bully pulpit on topics like these is certainly desirable. Finally, Kerry had a few open doors to election that he never walked through. I take that to mean he doesn't see them as important. Illegal immigration is the most stark. There are many people in this country concerned with it at many levels (economic, security, education, health care, etc.). It got nary a mention from either candidate. Unlike Social Security, a strong committment to fixing this problem would have been viewed very positively. To me, the direction the Republicans take over the next four years will be determined by events. Will they be forced into being primarily a "security" party? Probably. The Dems get to decide their course of action. If they stand up on security and US interest along with trying to propose some real (non-communistic) approaches to the demographically driven entitlement problems, they will gain. I doubt they'll do that. My guess is that they move further left.
MelissaInPhilly Posted November 3, 2004 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] But he didn't win Pennsylvania, probably because the turnout in Democratic Philadelphia and Pittsburgh was so huge.
John Adams Posted November 3, 2004 Author Posted November 3, 2004 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.' 99295[/snapback] Actually, he launched cruise missles at Osama.
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 3, 2004 Posted November 3, 2004 Actually, he launched cruise missles at Osama. 99502[/snapback] Yeah otherwise known as the fire and forget approach.... Unfortunately Osama didn't forget...
alg Posted November 3, 2004 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. 99286[/snapback] Actually, we know exactly what Clinton would have done if America was attacked on his watch. If I am not mistaken, embassy's are considered an extension of a country's territory. We had multiple attacks on our territories in Africa during his watch. This on top of the original WTC bombing. People seem to forget this point. We should have been kicking a$$ and taking names even then. But no, Bubba's too busy getting a hummer and pardoning people like Mark Rich, one of the biggest thieves in US history. Sorry, but Bill was about being popular, not making the tough choices needed to become a true leader. Yet the Dem's cling to him like a pup to it's mother? They have no idea how much Rep's see Clinton as one of the key architects of the destruction of America's moral fabric...
John Adams Posted November 12, 2004 Author Posted November 12, 2004 While I generally agree that Bush has not done enough to limit spending, I think there are more things in play than you mention. First and foremost is terrorism/Iraq/Islamo-fascism. I think anyone that believes this is an important issue would have to reluctantly table their concerns in the other areas. To me the differences in approach to this problem were profound and favored Bush overwhelmingly. I was likely not alone in my opinion on this matter. Weighing this against "sending a message" on fiscal conservatism was not difficult. There was no evidence in Kerry's record that he'd be any more fiscally conservative than Bush anyway. Quite the contrary. Next, the opportunities for Bush to limit spending are squelched from many angles. First, Congress spends the money. Bush could certainly do A LOT more to provide better guidance here. Also however, there are still many "third rail" topics when it comes to spending cuts. Social Security is the most obvious. Any change at all would be spun out of control and quite possibly cost a candidate the election. That is our fault, not the candidate's. There are other areas as well. A better use of the bully pulpit on topics like these is certainly desirable. Finally, Kerry had a few open doors to election that he never walked through. I take that to mean he doesn't see them as important. Illegal immigration is the most stark. There are many people in this country concerned with it at many levels (economic, security, education, health care, etc.). It got nary a mention from either candidate. Unlike Social Security, a strong committment to fixing this problem would have been viewed very positively. To me, the direction the Republicans take over the next four years will be determined by events. Will they be forced into being primarily a "security" party? Probably. The Dems get to decide their course of action. If they stand up on security and US interest along with trying to propose some real (non-communistic) approaches to the demographically driven entitlement problems, they will gain. I doubt they'll do that. My guess is that they move further left. 99455[/snapback] Although we voted differently, I agree with this too.
Mickey Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 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 98839[/snapback] The most liberal candidate we could find?!?!!??! No, that would have been Howard Dean. We rejected him because he was too liberal and instead nominated a slightly left of center candidate with a good military bio and a dead center VP in Edwards. As soon as that happened the republican operation to tag them as the most liberal of the liberals was thrown into high gear. No matter who the democrats nominate, unless perhaps they resurrect George Wallace and give him the nod, the republicans will tar and feather them as extremist liberals. No matter how far right the democrats move, the republicans can always take a step further to the right themselves. If Richard Nixon was running today on the same positions he had in 1968 and 1972 he would, by comparison to modern day republicans, be a flaming liberal. Hell, Dole used to be the extreme righty back in '88 but by '96 he was considered a moderate republican.
Mickey Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Actually, he launched cruise missles at Osama. 99502[/snapback] John, I am sure you remember the deafening battle cry from the right to go after terrorists and how they applauded his cruise missile attacks against our enemies, don't you? Why I remember well all the public speeches given by Newt and company about getting tougher on terrorists. Didn't he publicly call for an invasion of Afghanistan? Didn't he? Ohhhhhhhh riiiiiigggghhhhhttt, I forgot, he and the rest of the right had their noses buried in the President's pants so far they couldn't be bothered with little things like national security. I seem to remember the President's lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court that the Jones suit should be delayed until after he left office to keep it from being a distraction to a President who has more important concerns and because such civil suits could be used as a political weapon against sitting Presidents. Hmmmmm in retrospect, maybe we could have waited a few more years to see that case come to a conclusion.
BillsNYC Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Kerry was a crappy candidate- Dean would have had a better chance at winning. 98871[/snapback] Actually, the Bush campaign was DYING to run against Dean, they had an amazing ammount of ammo to destroy him. When Kerry won the primary, the Bush team was quite nervous.
BuffOrange Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 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. 98817[/snapback] Can you bet on the Patriots this week?
BillsNYC Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 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. 98906[/snapback] I think Edwards was a lesson that Obama needs to wait a good ammount of time before joining a vp ticket or anything higher than a senate seat. Let's be honest, the guy had one good speech, he could be the Rob Johnson of politics.
BillsNYC Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Actually, he launched cruise missles at Osama. 99502[/snapback] cough..Wag the Dog...cough
VABills Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 I guess they hoped him being a practicing catholic would help with that religous group. 98839[/snapback] Practicing, meaning he goes to a Catholic church sometimes on Sunday, probably as often as he shows up to vote in the Senate. He was showing up to "other" churches during the campaign. Any "real" Catholic knows that attending another denominations church does not relieve you from attending a "Catholic" Church on Sunday. His practice of being a Catholic leaves a lot to be desired, by those of us that are practicing Catholics. I am not judging him, just saying that his being a Catholic would not sway my vote unless he were a very devote and humble person in the Church.
stuckincincy Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 John, I am sure you remember the deafening battle cry from the right to go after terrorists and how they applauded his cruise missile attacks against our enemies, don't you? Why I remember well all the public speeches given by Newt and company about getting tougher on terrorists. Didn't he publicly call for an invasion of Afghanistan? Didn't he? Ohhhhhhhh riiiiiigggghhhhhttt, I forgot, he and the rest of the right had their noses buried in the President's pants so far they couldn't be bothered with little things like national security. I seem to remember the President's lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court that the Jones suit should be delayed until after he left office to keep it from being a distraction to a President who has more important concerns and because such civil suits could be used as a political weapon against sitting Presidents. Hmmmmm in retrospect, maybe we could have waited a few more years to see that case come to a conclusion. 114748[/snapback] Have some Enfamil. Or get a firearm and kill us vermin.
Mickey Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Have some Enfamil. Or get a firearm and kill us vermin. 114805[/snapback] Nooooo. I shall instead convert you into a zombie, powerless to resist my bidding.
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 I forgot, he and the rest of the right had their noses buried in the President's pants so far they couldn't be bothered with little things like national security. 114748[/snapback] You are confused... That was Monica And because of his didtraction that we were more vulnerable.... Do you think sendng a few "Fire and Forget" missles would work... Clinton Did because he fired them and then forgot.... Treated it like a stain on a blue dress...
stuckincincy Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Nooooo. I shall instead convert you into a zombie, powerless to resist my bidding. 114862[/snapback] "It was a Zombie Jamboree, took place in the NY cemetary Zombies from all parts of the island Some of them were great calypso-ese Since the season was cannibal They got together in Baccanal, And they were singing Back to back, belly to belly Well I don't give a damn cause I'm stone dead already Back to back, belly to belly, It's a Zombie Jamboree One female zombie she wouldn't behave See how she's dancing out of the grave In one hand she's holding a quart of rum The other hand was knocking a conga drum You know the lead singer starts to make his rhyme.... ..etc., We do the limbo! Hey hey hey hey!
Recommended Posts