Time to Mend Fences... - Page 2

Burnin' oil · 11-03-2004, 02:10 PM

Synergy, my man, synergy

SLO-BOB · 05:30 PM

This is a test............

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Why would anyone expect the administration to move any closer to the liberal viewpoint? The nation has clearly rejected the Michael Moore liberals and elected Bush/Cheney by a large margin...both in electoral and popular vote. Obviously their ideas are the ones embraced by most Americans. Moving left would only betray those who elected them. Ask Daschle what happens when you betray the folks who elected you.

RoninLB · 11-03-2004, 08:40 PM

the Dems did succeed in one congressional race, I think.. His liberal talk may be a clear representation of the dem party evolution.

afaik,
Carnival Cruise Lines is booked with those hollywood super stars who promised to leave the country if Bush won.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Yep..the "good losers" here went through several neighborhoods near the University last night and broke out the windshields of any cars with Bush bumper stickers.

RoninLB · 11-03-2004, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fintstone
Yep..the "good losers" here went through several neighborhoods near the University last night and broke out the windshields of any cars with Bush bumper stickers.

n s

cool_chick · 11-03-2004, 08:49 PM

flintstone, how about the middle. I don't think being extreme right-wing like we currently are is good either.

And Bush didn't win by a "large" margin. There are 163.5 million people who don't agree with right-wing extremism. That's ALOT of people.

RoninLB · 11-03-2004, 08:57 PM

the real winner was a group that has been trashed routinely. The reality was like complaining about a pimple on a beautiful woman. It's the Scott-Irish US culture. They will be catered to now imo.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
flintstone, how about the middle. I don't think being extreme right-wing like we currently are is good either.

And Bush didn't win by a "large" margin. There are 163.5 million people who don't agree with right-wing extremism. That's ALOT of people.

You are in denial. It was the most votes a candidate has received in history and the first majority a candidate has received in many years (Clinton never did). You call it extreme right wing...the rest of the nation (all that red on the map) considers it to be moderate and you views to be radically left wing. Don't take my word for it, check the statistics from the exit polls.

dd74 · 11-03-2004, 09:11 PM

Time to mend fences?

The Democrats have to mend their own fences first. Then they can think about the fences between them and the other guys.

Overpaid Slacker · 11-04-2004, 08:42 AM

dd74 -- my point exactly. Well put.

The first fence they should mend is the one around the pasture they put Carter and Moore out to (admittedly that'd be a Great Wall-sized fence).

JP

SLO-BOB · 05:31 PM

This is a test............

island911 · 11-04-2004, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74
Time to mend fences?

The Democrats have to mend their own fences first. Then they can think about the fences between them and the other guys.

Quote:

Originally posted by JP
The Dems didn't want to be united, they wanted to be angry, self-righteous and snivelling . . . Every single thing W did, or didn't do that Dem's thought he should've done, they seized upon with unholy sanctimony, and unprecedented complicity to publicize.

Spot-on guys.

I'll just echo, the Dem's relied far too much on poitics of destruction. The demonizing of Bush was the bulk of what the Dem's counted on. They certainly scared and outraged a whole lot of young impressionable minds. It will be interesting to see the long-term results of this.

I'm not sure exactly how the Dem's can go positive. But, certainly, they need to work hard on that. Maybe they could take a baby-step and redirect their "outrage" to our external enemies, . . . rather than pushing for self-critical "outrage" at our problems w/in.

Mule · 11-04-2004, 10:35 AM

Bingo Island. THey want some play, let 'em get out the knee pads!

Overpaid Slacker · 11:02 AM

Sebring -

1992 --
BJ: 43% P.V. at 44.9 mm -- 370 EC
GHWB: 38% P.V. at 39.2 mm -- 168 EC

If the 1992 margin is "large in anyone's book" at about 5.5 mm, how is W's defeat of JK by almost 5 mm not "large" in yours?

1996 --
BJ: 49% P.V. at 47.4 mm -- 379 EC
BD: 41% P.V. at 39.2 mm -- 159 EC (eerie that it's almost the same as GHWB)

Now I don't care about EC votes -- it's a synthetic mechanism whose importance begins and ends at 270.

Remember, in 1992, 57% of the population of the United States did not approve of BJ Clinton and voted against having him in office. By your measure, that was REALLY not great for BJ, I guess. Yet this was hailed by our media as an "overwhelming mandate for change." And -- more on this in a moment, he had no coattails.

Also, in 1996, 51% of the population of the United States did not approve of a 2nd term for BJ Clinton. Was that "not great for" BJ? In 2000, "only" 50% of the population didn't approve of W.

Now it's 2004, and a clear majority of people voted for W, something that never happened for BJ. However, not only has W won a 2nd term, during the 2002 elections the GOP picked up seats in the Congress -- when does that happen? About every fifty years or so.

AND, more importantly, the GOP this year picked up 5 seats in the Senate, looks like 2 (maybe 5) in the House AND knocked the biggest obstructionist piece of feces out of the Senate (Daschle).

W's re-election is big news, but the tectonic shift in national elected government is HUGE and bespeaks an ascension of Republican virtues.

Dems' gotta get used to the fact that their attack tactics, lack of any meaningful suggestions and obstructionism are counterproductive -- they're attacking and obstructing what the majority of people have affirmed as their policies, their ideologies.

And this shift didn't occur on Nov. 1, 2004. It's been occurring since at least 9/11 but the Dems refused to see it when it bit them on the jackass in 2002. They played the same media/deceit games this time 'round, oblivious to the fact that nobody (but their partisans wearing the thickest tin foil hats) bought it or wanted to hear it in the first place.

You can't cover utter lack of substance on your platform by attacking the other guy -- America has seen the Man Behind the Curtain and it's not impressed.

You can't dangle the prospects of Plans contingent upon your election like Christmas presents to be given "only if you're good" and have no substance.

Ther Nae feooolin' anybaddaeh. Well, nobody worth listening to.

And don't fool yourself into believing this is no big thing, when it's a much larger mandate, in toto, than any Democrat has had ... well, since FDR, if not earlier.

JP

CamB · CamB's Garage

The demonizing of Bush was the bulk of what the Dem's counted on. They certainly scared and outraged a whole lot of young impressionable minds.

Based on exit poll result I've read, most people voted for Bush because of "moral authority" and terrorism.

I seem to remember the two main Republican selling points were "Kerry's too liberal" and "Kerry is weak on terror".

So who's demonising who?

SLO-BOB · 05:32 PM

This is a test............

island911 · 11-04-2004, 11:55 AM

Cam -- You're going to compare Republican pointing to Kerry's liberalism and voting record on terrorism issues, to the vitriol promulgated by likes of Michael Moore?

there is simply no contest.

I'm not claiming that the conservatives were without demonizing Kerry. Simply that Kerry most entirely relied on the popularity of Bush Bashing.

RoninLB · 11-04-2004, 12:49 PM

comparing hard numbers of this election to others that have happened in a different time on a different planet distorts the picture imo. The bottom line is that Bush will aggressively push his policies imo. Bush don't care if the congressional bs is Rep or Dem. He'll probably privately screw any congressional Rep that even thinks about standing in his way. He has the credibility of grabbing both parties budget pork for himself 'cause he was hungry. so, imo, those who tag along for some scraps will be rewarded.. no matter which party.

I relate this election mandate to the '60s TV western. It's the macho male good guy dealing with a lawless world that's also inhabited by idiots that you have to protect.

mikester · 11-04-2004, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fintstone
You are in denial. It was the most votes a candidate has received in history and the first majority a candidate has received in many years (Clinton never did). You call it extreme right wing...the rest of the nation (all that red on the map) considers it to be moderate and you views to be radically left wing. Don't take my word for it, check the statistics from the exit polls.

Look at the other side of that coin man - you're in denial yourself.

He also got the most recoreded votes against him (for Kerry) against him in history.

The facts are our population is more than it ever has been and our voter turnout was higher than it has been since 1968. So...the actual numbers are really meaning less. The percentages matter the most because they are more or less timeless. 51% is still 51 out of a 100 which is not a wide margin of approval. Granted - he won by more of a percentage than any candidate has in a while the fact is most votes went to one of two candidates and third parties didn't get much press or play this time around.

You won - we are a 51% socially conservative nation which could be stated as "largely conservative."

Also - we have a 49% socially liberal nation which could also be states as "Largely liberal" and would still be correct. 49% is just shy of half the country who disapprove of the president's performance in his first four years. The facts are that in any other election that 49% was enough to win. It wasn't this time but such is life.

Time to move on.

Make no mistake - the Democrats of the day Suck hard.