Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Bowing to Asherman and wishing he was a GOP policy maker plus speech writer. The thing is that the GOP won't do everything perfectly in the next four years. There will no doubt be screw ups, miscalculations, and perhaps a scandal or two as can be expected in any administration that has ever existed. And the 'swampy foggyland opposition' will attempt to make those look like the end of Democracy as we know it, the return of Facism, Jim Crow, and destruction of civil rights (not to mention the rain forests and all endangered species) as they have done for the past four years.

We have reelected a very good, however imperfect, man who has a solid vision. I only hope we have sufficient leaders and backbone to accomplish much good in the next four years as well as continuing to take the fight to the terrorists until they are all dead or give up, whichever comes first. I believe by the end of this next four years we will see flourishing democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan with both countries on their way to at least improved peace and prosperity.

And maybe we will also see a new vision in the Democrat party who will return to their roots and values as we had with FDR, Truman, and Kennedy.

The best possible outcome for me will be elections in which I will support a candidate as I have always done, but if my guy/gal loses, I can be confident the country is also in good hands with the loyal opposition. I would have had no such confidence with a Kerry presidency abetted by the leftwing extremists who now control that party.

0 Replies

The Nation is not nearly so divided as some would believe, IMO. As Foxf pointed out, a decisive majority of The Electorate DID NOT VOTE TO REPLACE Bush The Greater. Not every eligible voter turned out, remember. Nearly 204 Million Americans were elible to vote, not quite 116 Million did so, a bit less than 57% of the eligible population, according to GMU's United States Election Project.

The Democratic Party's message simply did not appeal to sufficient of The Electorate; most of America rejected or at the very least did not embrace their proposal. Of those who saw fit to vote, 3.5 Million more voted specifically to retain The Incumbant than voted to replace him. Quite simply, though over 56 Million people voted for Kerry, nearly 150 Million people, around 73% of The Electorate, were not, for whatever reason, persuaded to vote a new occupant into the Oval Office. The proposition that Kerry replace Bush gained the votes of barely more than 1/4 of The Electorate. Well over 70% of The Electorate DID NOT VOTE FOR KERRY. True, A huge number of eligible voters did not vote to retain Bush the Greater, but that is not the point; the point is that he was not the challenger and nearly 3/4 of The Electorate did not vote to replace him.

I just don't see how one can characterize 75/25 as a "Deep Split" ... unless one is so desperate for relevance one chooses to ignore the facts.

0 Replies

No usually people dont vote because they are unhappy with both candidates- as i was in the 2000 election- so should we do away with the two party system so that more peoples views are represented- as i said before kerry's views are not well suited to mine but i had little choice as in my state nader was not even on the ballot- is it truly a fair election process where third parties are not represented

0 Replies

Should have done a write-in, kasey.

But, if you actually want Socialism, you would probably be happier moving to a Socialist country. The reason I say that is you'll never be satisfied in America. We are ingrained against Socialism. It will never happen here.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Should have done a write-in, kasey.

But, if you actually want Socialism, you would probably be happier moving to a Socialist country. The reason I say that is you'll never be satisfied in America. We are ingrained against Socialism. It will never happen here.

Not since FDR.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Bowing to Asherman and wishing he was a GOP policy maker plus speech writer. The thing is that the GOP won't do everything perfectly in the next four years. There will no doubt be screw ups, miscalculations, and perhaps a scandal or two as can be expected in any administration that has ever existed. And the 'swampy foggyland opposition' will attempt to make those look like the end of Democracy as we know it, the return of Facism, Jim Crow, and destruction of civil rights (not to mention the rain forests and all endangered species) as they have done for the past four years.

We have reelected a very good, however imperfect, man who has a solid vision. I only hope we have sufficient leaders and backbone to accomplish much good in the next four years .....

Good points Foxfyre. Now that the election is over and the win-at-any-cost opposition is defeated, it is important that we get out of the defensive crouch and become as objective as possible, recognizing that the temptation to let political tactics displace national interest besets both sides equally. A touch of Asherman would do them some good.

It is important that the administation both do the right thing and explain its actions adequately, so that they are understood. Domestically we face some serious issues such as Social Security and health care in which right action requires a measure of individual responsibility for his/her own life. Externally, there are difficult challenges requiring wisdom, perseverance, and flexibility. Finally, all must recognize that other nations, including our traditional 'allies' will not often agree with us or support us: not because they are either hate-filled or evil, but rather because their perceived self interest is different from ours. We are no longer united by dreadful common enemies. Europe has grown accustomed to the protection of a compliant America and now resents the independent application of our power. We have likewise grown accustomed to at least the appearance of their support. Both sides must get over it.

0 Replies

(Extreme circumstances. And, it wasn't full blown Socialism---IMO--it just had a couple of characteristics.)

And, I supported it as a response to the crash.

-------
My 'it will never happen here' is in regards to a choice--not fueled by an emergent catalyst--but a structural choice of the majority of Americans...

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

(Extreme circumstances. And, it wasn't full blown Socialism---IMO--it just had a couple of characteristics.)

And, I supported it as a response to the crash.

-------
My 'it will never happen here' is in regards to a choice--not fueled by an emergent catalyst--but a structural choice of the majority of Americans...

Me too. Desperate times call for desperate measures. IMO, had FDR lived, I think he would have retracted some of the socialist measures he put in place once the Depression had ented.

0 Replies

I was listening to the radio this morning and stumbled upon the Michael Savage show. He's the mouthpiece for the Republican party, isn't he?

Anyway, one of his callers said, "Michael, now that President Bush has been reelected he'd better damn well stick with the two things that put him over the top -- morality and security -- the two most important things in this country today. If he goes back on his word the Democrats will take over and they'll turn this into a socialist nation and stay in control for the next 60 years!"

Savage said, "I agree."

Had I known the Republicans were capable of such passion maybe I would have voted for Bush.

I wonder if I made a mistake.

0 Replies

It would appear you're capable of making a mistake, Gus.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Did anybody catch Bill Maher tonight?

<< Raises hand Smile

I was going to sign back on and tell y'all about it, but it was just so bizarre!!! That Alan Simpson is a crusty old coot!! Who knew? I don't think he'll be guesting on that show in the near future LOL.

Then there was Susan Sarandon - hey Susan! Do me a favor! Stop talking about abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, and religion.
Not one of those four factors factored - even remotely - in my vote for President Bush. Think she'll take the hint? Nah.

The rest of the show was fairly predictable, some pretty funny (I liked the pictures and Maher's commentary at the end LOL). But...no matter how many times he was told that his demonizing of the red states was a sure fire backfire, he did. not. listen.

As my beloved (and newly elected) president would say:

Yo, Maher...two words:

Open your eyes!

I turned off the TV and went to bed feeling fairly sanguine about our prospects for holding onto power for the next 50 years. Cool

0 Replies

I've never heard Savage...I don't think...

I've heard he's horrible--a racist, sexist... Is that wrong, right?

So, Savage thinks, along with the caller:

If Bush lies or abandons any policies, he'll be defeated in the next election--->meaning the Dems will be in overwhelming control--->which he links to immediate Socialism---->and he indicates this will last 60 years.

Either a little unstable or incredibly prescient.
<rolling eye emoticon>

0 Replies

Timber wrote:

It would appear you're capable of making a mistake, Gus.

Because I listened to the Michael Savage show?

Point well taken, timber.

0 Replies

now that the florida/cuban vote is in does anyone think Bush will do a reality check on US/Cuba relations? Or would that be just too much humanity driven of an issue to deal with.

0 Replies

I think he's hardlining Cuba so as not to aid Castro.

The last couple of things I heard Bush do re Cuba was limit the amount of money Americans can send to their families--and limit visits. Is that what you're talking about, dys?

I don't think this is an internally, politically driven issue. I think Bush is trying to break up the last real bastion of Communism. If they didn't have the money infused by American relatives, the people may have already revolted.

0 Replies

(Tips hat too Asherman.)

Yup JW, that was a funny one. I LMAO at his response to the British Headlines though. "If we want your opinion, we'll dictate it to you through Tony Blair!" It does seem they're having difficulty understanding that you can't win elections by accusing the majority of the citizens of being religious nuts, idiots or both. It may make them feel worldly to side with the world, but that's not going to get them elected here. Anyone who knows anything about business knows it's not always the most popular guy, who gets the job done.

0 Replies

Cuba, should be liberated, plain and simple. The only reason they aren't is because we made a deal with Ivan. Ivan no longer cares. I wish we'd stop starving masses, pretending that that hurts leaders. I think I'd rather be shot than starved. It's less painful, more efficient and has 100 times the chance of striking the appropriate target. Economic sanctions hurt Castro no more than the hurt Saddam or Kim and they've killed more people than American bombs. Plus, they kill all the wrong people.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I think he's hardlining Cuba so as not to aid Castro.

The last couple of things I heard Bush do re Cuba was limit the amount of money Americans can send to their families--and limit visits. Is that what you're talking about, dys?

I don't think this is an internally, politically driven issue. I think Bush is trying to break up the last real bastion of Communism. If they didn't have the money infused by American relatives, the people may have already revolted.

So this idea of concern for the people (you know like Iraqii's) only applies to the middle east (where the oil is) and not to the victims 90 miles away in Cuba, good thinking there, why should we be corcerned about a few million peeps on some friggin' island off the coast of florida where we could have the Castro machine turned upside doen in a matter of weeks simply by opening up a inane policy that has not worked for 40 years. Learn anything from history? apparently not.

0 Replies

Does anyone else find it odd that the same folks in favor of lifting the sanctions and containment which haven't toppled Castro and liberated oceanbound, would-be revolution-exporting Cuba in over 40 years seem to figure continued sanctions and isolation were of better prospect in the case of Saddam and and landlocked, neighbor-ringed, would-be hegemonistic Iraq?

No biggie ... just a passing thought. I suppose that mindset goes along with the mindset which rationalizes opposition to the execution of those guilty of heinous crime while advocating the termination of those guilty of having been concieved irresonsibly, inconveniently, or otherwise unpropitiously.

Yes, this election offers to some a good deal for which to be thankful, some of which only now is becoming evident. This, for example:

Newsweek's post-election issue revolves around the leadup to Election '04, with articles from reporters embedded with the campaigns of the two major candidates. Buried within one of these articles are two paragraphs that might have eliminated Kerry from contention within hours of publication, had they appeared before the election.

Quote:

Kerry to McCain: "I can't say this is an offer because I've got to be able to deny it"

But Kerry was intent, and after he wrapped up the nomination in March, he went back after McCain a half-dozen more times. "I can't say this is an offer because I've got to be able to deny it," Kerry told his friend. "But you've got to do this." To show just how sincere he was, he made an outlandish offer. If McCain said yes, he would expand the role of vice president to include secretary of Defense and the overall control of foreign policy. (The deal was reminiscent of the so-called co-presidency offered to Gerald Ford by Ronald Reagan at the 1980 Republican convention; the suggestion fell apart of its own weight.) McCain exclaimed, "You're out of your mind. I don't even know if it's constitutional, and it certainly wouldn't sell."

That meant no. Kerry was thwarted and furious about it. "Goddammit," he ranted to an intermediary. "Don't you know what I offered him? Why the f--- didn't he take it? After what the Bush people did to him ..." Kerry was mystified. The Kerry camp made a last stab at persuading McCain through actor Warren Beatty, an old friend of Shrum's and a longtime Democratic activist. But McCain wasn't buying.

The New York Post isn't happy:

Quote:

NEWSWEEK'S DERELICTION OF DUTYVoters had a right to know about the depths to which John Kerry was willing to sink in order to win the Oval Office.

And they had a right to know it before they voted, not after.

Keeping the public informed is what journalism used to be about.

Not anymore; not at Newsweek.

Fortunately, America dodged that Kerry bullet even though it never saw it. I for one am thankful, even if, in concert with the NYP, I'm a bit peeved this was not made public before the die was cast.

0 Replies

And I was chastised for calling the man a scumbag...

SCUMBAG!

(thanks for the scoop, Timber)

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know