Dear American right

[304065]

No one really ready to take the reigns

Pun!

[mikester]

Wayne - I agree with you but I think the Republicans have 4 strong candidates. You forgot Jeb.

[Don 944 LA]

Originally posted by mikester
Wayne - I agree with you but I think the Republicans have 4 strong candidates. You forgot Jeb.

Oh wouldn't that be funny

George Bush
George W Bush
Jeb Bush

all presidents

thats when I move to Canada or elsewhere

I'd rather see the Governator !!

[Moneyguy1]

Two men...

Both think that God speaks through them and have used religion as a defense for their actions

Neither can be convinced they are capable of or have committed any moral errors

Both successfully use fear as an instrument

Both are responsible, either directly or indirectly for the deaths of thousands

I wonder, if a truly impartial observer from another era, or another civilized world could really tell them apart.......

Read into it what you will..........

[Superman]

No Daddy. America does not reject my thinking. I think the margin was something like 2%. But I do think your president is going to act like he thinks so. Like those of us who have very grave concerns about the direction we're going in......should just submit. And that, I think, is what he means when he states he will unite the country. We'll see, but I think his words are not honest. I think he thinks like you do. I think he's going to cram some real devastation right down our throats. MHO.

But I also agree that he was ripe for the picking. And the Dems certainly picked probably the worst possible candidate. And as I said in another thread today, I am struggling to understand how waitresses and bus drivers could have become so disenfranchised from the party of the people that they would vote tax breaks for billionaires. And I'm not just saying that to be spiteful. IT's a quote from an article posted here a couple of days ago.

You see, and again I am not trying to be poopy here but just trying to explain my thinking so that we as a community can get closer to figuring stuff out.....you see, I have a hard time thinking of something, anything, that our current president has not botched miserably. There is nothing positive in my perception of our president. I can hardly think of someone doing more damage. Again, MHO.

[jm951]

Wayne- Arnold is ineligible for President.

Mike, nobody has told the left to sit down and shut up that I've seen lately. There probably are some. You are free to continue to say what you please and support the DNC as it goes even further left and gets as much support as Nader does next time around. Your choice.

[jyl]

The Reps who crow that "America soundly rejected the Dems" are making too much of a narrow victory.

Incumbent Presidents usually crush their opponents, rather than winning by a nose. Here's the history as far back as I have it - the first number is the winner's popular vote percentage advantage, the second number is the percentage of electoral college votes that the winner got:

2004 Bush d Kerry 3.0% 54%
1996 Clinton d Dole 8.5% 70%
1984 Reagan d Mondale 18.3% 97%
1972 Nixon d McGovern 23.0% 96%
1964 Johnson d Goldwater 22.1% 90%
1956 Eisenhower d Stevenson 16.0% 85%
1948 Truman d Dewey 4.7% 57%
1944 Roosevelt d Dewey 7.5% 81%

In the end, Bush just squeaked out this win. By one state and 140,000 votes. His (incredibly skilled) political advisers may have spun this as a "broad victory", but that is not what the numbers say.

He ran a brilliant campaign, laser-focused on his core voter base, coordinating with the "ban gay marriage" propositions in key states. The Reps and their ideological allies did a great job of negative smear campaigning, although this time the Dems were just as good - no white hats worn on either side. And even though the twin wars (terror and Iraq) were a weakness for Bush, they were also an asset, because Americans tend to rally around the President in wartime. (Can you name an incumbent President who was denied re-election during a significant war?)

Kerry fought it down to the wire, and did about as well as he could have, given the weaknesses of his background (a senator, from the liberal Northeast, war protestor) and his personal style (long-winded, wooden, patrician). The Democrats as a party ran the best campaign I've seen them do in a long time, in terms of money raised, grassroots involvement, voter turnout, quick-reaction spin war, etc). Six months ago, I didn't think Kerry had much of a chance; by the day of the election, the strong Dem campaign had pulled Kerry to nearly a 50-50 chance.

So, Kerry came close, closer than any challenger to an incumbent President in the past several decades, but in the end Bush hung on to his job.

Dems, it's not the end of the world, but a hopeful sign for 2008. If the Dem party can do as good a job campaigning in 2008, with a stronger candidate and without war and incumbency helping the Reps, the Dem party has a good chance at the White House. The close race of 2004 shows there is a realistic way for a Dem candidate to take the White House without winning a single Southern state.

Reps, it's not the keys to Heaven, but an opportunity. The party has four years with total control of government, total responsibility for the results, and a huge political debt to its most conservative elements. If the actions are wise and the results good, and the party can restrain its extreme conservatives, then the Rep party will deserve another 4 or 8 years.

[jyl]

Wayne, I think the Reps will face some tough choices in 2008 as well.

The bedrock of the current Rep voter base is conservative Christians and other "moral values" voters. Obviously enough other people supported Bush too, but that bedrock group is what pulled this election out for him.

McCain is not so strong with that bedrock core; he's an independent's darling, and Bush wiped him up in the 2000 primaries. Remember the anonymous phone calls claiming that McCain fathered black children out of wedlock, that destroyed him in the S. Carolina primary ( http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/ ).

Guiliani has a long history of supporting abortion, of which conservative Christians are very aware ( http://www.christiangallery.com/silenceofshepherds.htm ).

Arnold cannot run for President, by law (not born in the US). And he is pretty liberal.

I do agree the Dems face tougher choices. They have to reject Hilary Clinton's likely bid without alienating her supporters. They have to have a heart to heart with their most controversial elements - gay rights activists. They still have to improve their grassroots campaigning in smaller towns and suburbs, to catch up with the Rep organization. And they have to choose a strong candidate! The conventional wisdom seems to be that they need a Southern Democrat - I don't think that's right, a plain-spoken Midwesterner would work, although obviously if Clinton II comes along, that's great. The main thing is, he has to connect with people, like Clinton and Bush do.

[Halm]

First and foremost, I think that Bush and Kerry are great Americans and both have the same basic goals for America. However it is the "HOW" to accomplish these goals that seperated them.

I think this quote from the USA editorial section sums this up pretty well: "Can anyone say the name of the commonwealth that gave the nation its first father-son presidents without appending "liberal" to it? Kerry is the latest Bay State politician to learn that to most of the country, he hails from an alien land."

And Kerry's plans were alien to more Americans than found it comforting.

[Moneyguy1]

Liberal..same root as liberate and liberty.

What's wrong with those words?

[928ram]

Nothing Money, but "liberal" in the political sense has become such a desciptor of the farthest left that it doesn't even describe most Democrats anymore.

[Bleyseng]

I felt Bush ran a Good vs Evil campaign that appealed to most Americans esp. in a wartime election. Kerry ran a good campaign but still wasn't clear enough as to really how he was 1) different from Bush 2)how he was going to make things better.
As for the thread topic-I have seen a few "Why should we listen to you losers" type posts and thats the problem with the Bush Govn at this time. They have sharply divided the country with their mudslinging, negative campaigning in not only the Presidential race but also nearly all GOP races. Now its their problem to actually do something instead of blaming everyone else or this will be the end of the GOP run. The GOP has major issues ie: Iraq, the economy, heath care, SS, that they must make good on their promises or people will be looking for a different solution in 4 years. The GOP only won by 2% which is not a landslide nor mandate, in fact thats a barely squeaking by victory for an incumbent.
The Dems must oust the Clintons stranglehold on the party cuz there is no way H.Clinton is going to be elected as President nor any other left leaning liberals.
McCain- great choice as the Dems will beat him hands down as he has as much personality as a piece of wood
Arnold- if he can run, another great choice as he is too liberal for the GOP right
Rudy- might make it

Geoff

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by 928ram
Nothing Money, but "liberal" in the political sense has become such a desciptor of the farthest left that it doesn't even describe most Democrats anymore.

What do you mean by this? What does the word mean to you in a political sense? What do you mean by "farthest left"?

I"m just curious because this has been puzzling to me for a long time.

[hardflex]

And now that the election is over, out of our financial Disneyland.


http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html


http://slate.msn.com/id/2109203/


What goes around, comes around. These issues alone, with the Republicans in control of all of govt. now, will weaken any Republican candidate next time around....

[Halm]

Originally posted by Bleyseng
...They have sharply divided the country with their mudslinging, negative campaigning in not only the Presidential race but also nearly all GOP races. Now its their problem to actually do something instead of blaming everyone else Geoff

With all due respect, over the last 35 years the Left modernized "mudslinging" via their class warfare rhetoric followed by Ted Kennedy perfecting character assassination with Judge Bork.

That said, I agree that the words must be toned down and replaced with thoughtful debate of ideas.

[cool_chick]

Maybe I'm wrong, but hasn't the difference between the classes greatly widened over the past 35 years? Isn't that what the numbers demonstrate?

I dunno, something I heard. Personally I'm happy to be where I am at.....just was something I've heard.

[Bleyseng]

a article worth reading:

Published on Friday, November 5, 2004 by the Baltimore Sun
The Silver Lining of the Democrats' Disastrous Defeat
by Larry Beinhart

Senator John Kerry's loss of this election is a disaster for the country, but it could be the salvation of the Democratic Party.
If Mr. Kerry had won, he would have had to deal with the mess that President Bush has created. The war in Iraq. The coming implosion of the economy.

Mr. Kerry would have had to face a Republican Senate and a Republican House and a Republican judiciary. All eager to oppose, undermine and, in particular, blame him. Just as they did in the campaign. Don't think that a spirit of bipartisanship would have arisen. Just remember how they went after the Clintons.

Still, this was Mr. Kerry's race to lose.

Mr. Bush was not running against Mr. Kerry. He was running against reality.

The reality was that Mr. Bush was asleep at the wheel on 9/11. But he ran as the man to make us safer. Instead of taking the helm or rushing to the scene of the disaster, he fled. To Nebraska. Then took three days to get to Ground Zero. But he ran as the hero of New York.

He took a surplus and turned it into a deficit. He was the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a loss of jobs. But he ran on his economic policies and claimed they were working.

Mr. Bush ran against reality and won.

This is fairly astounding. It demands respect. There is something to be learned from it.

Mr. Bush was, as he claimed, steadfast. You knew where he stood and you knew he wouldn't change. Mr. Bush also had a knack for identifying things that disturb people and promising clear, bold solutions to them:


Terrorism - War on terror.

Education - No Child Left Behind.

Taxes - It's our money, we should have it back. And now, let's simplify the tax code.

Social Security - Save it by giving you more control over your own money and taking it away from the government.

Astounding cost of medicine - Add a benefit to Medicare.
Each of these is, without doubt, a real problem. Mr. Bush's solutions - not as phrased, but as practiced - are terrible.

But Mr. Kerry was not able to articulate that. Nor was he able to articulate, clearly, simply and boldly, his alternatives. He couldn't articulate a program because he didn't have much of one. He didn't have much of one because we don't have one. When I say "we," I mean Democrats, liberals, the left, moderates, realists and humanists - you know, us.

There are terrorists. What are we going to do about them? And once we decide, how do we make it sound stirring? How do we speak of it with flags flying and the Marine band going oompah-oompah, so that the red-staters stand up and salute? How do we really reform education, so that the red-staters can see that it's better than Mr. Bush's fraud-ridden, test-taking, hide-the-failures-in-the-basement program? Do we dare stand up to the special interests and offer real tax reform? Make the tax code comprehensible? Make it so that GE pays taxes? Make it genuinely progressive?

The case for taxing people who make $1 million a year at a higher rate than people who make $30,000 is pretty easy to make. So is the case that making money from money should be taxed quite as much or more than money made from working.

The truth about private pensions is that they can be taken away, as Halliburton just did to a group of its workers in the process of selling a subsidiary. The truth about investing in the markets is that you can lose your money, as you would have if you invested in most of Mr. Bush's companies. That, too, is a case that can be made. But only if we have a different plan for "saving" Social Security.

The Democrats have been thoroughly and completely kicked out of office. It is their turn to watch the Republicans make a hash out of things. Based on the past four years, they most certainly will.

Based on their performance in this election, the Republicans are also brilliant at running against reality. So it is not enough to sit back and watch. It is the time to think. And rethink. And when those thoughts are strong and clear and useful, to phrase them and rephrase them into sound bites and test those sound bites on voters so that they convey, with power and brevity, the message that is intended.

Then, having saved themselves, the Democrats might be ready to return and save the country. Which will know, by then, that it needs somebody to set things right.

[Moneyguy1]

Current administrative policy is like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound.