You are welcome( American English)
and no mention please.( Indian English)
I will always be here to help the needy .
Olga
Bear in mind....all this carry-on - and huge amounts of money.
And they still elected George W Bush!
What does that say for the system?
... What does it say, margo? Hmmmm ....
I guess the wrong guys were enjoying "the vanguard of (the voting public's) approval" at the time! And possibly the wrong guys were being shamelessly promoted (or not exactly critically scrutinized) by certain media powers (We know who they are!), for their own ends?
But no doubt about it, GWB had more than the requisite amounts of $$$$ & the "right"extremely powerful connections to succeed.
Depressing.
Sigh.
If someone wants to (briefly!) provide another explanation, you are most welcome.
It's not just money. If it was, Romney would be doing much better than he is.
Remember that Bush was first voted into office right after Bill Clinton's tenure. Al Gore was hobbled by the whole Monica debacle -- Bill didn't give him the kind of oomph that vice-presidents of two-term presidents usually get. Gore's choice of Lieberman for his own VP was also seen as dangerous, and Gore himself had problems in terms of campaigning. He's come a long way since then but he was called "wooden," "stiff," etc. He simply was not nearly the campaigner that Bill was.
Meanwhile, many disparate elements of the right were united by the idea of finally overthrowing the whole Clinton machine, and were willing to put aside differences to unite behind George.
Still, Gore almost won. (Did win the popular vote.)
Once George was in office, he was much harder to beat. An incumbent always carries a great advantage, especially during wartime. Kerry was simply not a strong enough candidate. He was again a poor campaigner in much the same vein as Gore (seen as elitist and Northeastern, wooden, etc.) and didn't react well to the Swiftboat attacks. (Accusations by Vietnam vets that Kerry exaggerated/ lied about his own Vietnam service.)
Still, George barely won.
George Barely Won???????
Do you remember that Slick Willie received only 43% of the popular vote in the Election of 1992?
Does that have anything to do with what I said?
Yes, George barely won. If Kerry had won Ohio -- which he almost did -- Kerry would be president today.
sozobe wrote:Meanwhile, many disparate elements of the right were united by the idea of finally overthrowing the whole Clinton machine, and were willing to put aside differences to unite behind George.
The other part of this was that Bush was a well liked governor who worked well across party lines in Texas. After all the partisan rancor in Clinton's last term, the idea of a "compassionate conservative" was appealing to a lot of people.
O K That explains king Georges first election. Now how about an explanation for his second election besides voter stupidity.
What about the fact that the American People could not have abided a man in office who looked exactly like the town Undertaker?
Yes, and if Nixon had won Illinois(He really did win Illinois and Daley stole it) and Texas( He really did win Texas-Johnson stole it) he would have been President. Kennedy won by three tenths of one percent..
49.9% to 49.6%. There have been many close contests for the American Presidency. Some of them, like the above, according to Historians, were stolen!
So you are saying because electicians have been stollen in the past it makes it O.K. today as long as its your candidate or your party.
A quote from a person who is not a Gandhi nor a communist.
Every two years the American politics industry
fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country
- and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians. ~Charles Krauthammer
This is not a question specifically about the US elections, but I can't find a suitable thread to ask it - nor do I want to start a new one ....
So, could someone explain to me what the term "wingnuts" means? And where the term actually comes from. I get the gist of the meaning, but wanted a more precise understanding of how the term is used in the US.
(This is not a trick question. I'm genuinely interested.)
Thanks.
@Cycloptichorn,
Thank you, Cyclo!
You (US folk) may not realize it, but some of the terms you use can sometimes be a little mystifying to folks in other places. I've often relied on creative guessing rather than interrupt the flow of a good conversation to ask ...
But then I guess what Australians are talking about could be a complete & utter mystery to others, too!
@msolga,
Good title for a thread. Idiots appear to have played major roles in this last election and there's little reason to think it won't continue.
@msolga,
Actually, msolga, it can be used both ways -- right wingnut or left wingnut. It's obviously just a play on words. A wingnut is a 'nut' with winglike parts that fits over a threaded bolt and can be turned with thumb and forefinger. But the word 'nut' in the colloquial vernacular also means a mad person. So, whether you're speaking of the left wing or the right wing, to describe a person as a zealous supporter of his/her political side as a 'wingnut' is a somewhat denigrating label. On A2k, at least, the absence of a directional tag -- 'left' or 'right' --usually indicates that the right wing is being referred to.
