Looking ahead to Bush's second term...

JustWonders wrote:

Moishe3rd - The exit poll info re: support for the war bears this out - by more than 70%.

I just have to laugh at the baloney some of the more dull and backwards types want to put forth as fact.

It's no wonder the Dems have lost five of the last seven presidential elections.

On the Sunday just past, a friend of mine, flying out of Dallas, was joined in first class seating by Kay Bailey Hutchinson. As Hutchinson sat down, a fellow leaned over and passed on his congratulations on the election victory. Hutchinson's reply (verbatim), "Thank you. We were very worried."

So, why worried? Which issue, if not Iraq, afloat over the last four years, particulary over the last few months, might be appropriately be considered as most threatening to a Republican administration re-election?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

moishe said
Quote:
Can you say Parliamentary Government? The United States of America doesn't have one. You do. They are quite different...
We have a rather unique Constitutional Republic.

True. Could you please elucidate how this relates to my post?

It was a comment on the differences in politics between a parliamentary system of goverment and the one we have here in Jesusland.
The parliamentary system of government has both more consensus and more diverse opinions.
This is because the ruling party must modify its views enought to at least placate the large minority parties it needs to run the government.
And, there is representation in the government for many diverse views, be they right, left, or just wacky.

In the United States, there is today a very sharp divide amongst those who voted for George Bush and those who voted for John Kerry.
One of the pieces of that divide was the Iraq war.
Unlike in a parliamentary system, in our government, you have to come down on one side or the other.
You were either fer it or agin it.
(Admittedly, John Kerry was both for it and against it, but he allowed the Michael Moore wing of his party to convey his true feelings, whether they were his true feelings or not...)
Therefore the melding of opinions and consensus of action while allowing the few strident dissenters to have their ineffectual say is not a characteristic of American government.

That is what I meant.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
Moishe3rd - The exit poll info re: support for the war bears this out - by more than 70%.

I just have to laugh at the baloney some of the more dull and backwards types want to put forth as fact.

It's no wonder the Dems have lost five of the last seven presidential elections.

On the Sunday just past, my partner, flying out of Dallas, was joined in first class seating by Kay Bailey Hutchinson. As Hutchinson sat down, a fellow leaned over and passed on his congratulations on the election victory. Hutchinson's reply (verbatim), "Thank you. We were very worried."

So, why worried? Which issue, if not Iraq, afloat over the last four years, particulary over the last few months, might be appropriately be considered as most threatening to a Republican administration re-election?

Quite frankly, if John Kerry had run a Bill Clinton-like campaign, hammering on one main issue like "it's the economy stupid," he might have won the election.
Instead, Kerry chose to make an issue of war: his war; their war; the Vietnam war; the right war; the wrong war; the whatever war....
This cost him the election.
How do you be the last man to understand that Saddam was a vicious dictator who was already, admittedly and legally, at war with the United States, before President Bush even went to the United Nations?
The American people understood this, even if they disagreed with invading Iraq; even if they felt let down that there were no weapons of mass destruction (found in enough quantities to be headlines until a few days before the elections).
We are at war. We were at war. We have no choice but to win the war. Otherwise, we lose.
Simple concept. 54 million Americans can grasp this. John Kerry could not.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
Moishe3rd - The exit poll info re: support for the war bears this out - by more than 70%.

I just have to laugh at the baloney some of the more dull and backwards types want to put forth as fact.

It's no wonder the Dems have lost five of the last seven presidential elections.

On the Sunday just past, my partner, flying out of Dallas, was joined in first class seating by Kay Bailey Hutchinson. As Hutchinson sat down, a fellow leaned over and passed on his congratulations on the election victory. Hutchinson's reply (verbatim), "Thank you. We were very worried."

So, why worried? Which issue, if not Iraq, afloat over the last four years, particulary over the last few months, might be appropriately be considered as most threatening to a Republican administration re-election?

There could be any number of reasons that Ms. Hutchinson replied as she did. She also made the comment just days (hours even) before the election that she was quite confident of a Bush victory. I'm on record with similar feelings. There's always room for "worry", though.

Perhaps she was worried about the rampant bias of the MSM (think NYTimes - I hear their circulation is dropping), or the execrable offerings by the likes of M. Moore, or the lies by Kerry about the draft and so-called "missing" weapons, or voter fraud (think Mary Poppins & Dick Tracy), or "Honest" Dan Blather, or that "Hollywood" gang (yeah, like most of them haven't made a total shambles of their own lives.)

Take your pick. There was plenty to be worried about, but the war in Iraq doesn't appear to have been high on the agenda.

But...don't take my word for it. Look up the exit poll data.

0 Replies

Quote:

This is because the ruling party must modify its views enought to at least placate the large minority parties it needs to run the government.

Actually, no. Where a party wins a majority of seats, then they have the voting majority and there is no need to placate or compromise. In the situation where one party gains more seats than any other party, but the total seats won doesn't constitute a majority, that is when the situation you describe obtains (Israel is constantly in such a situation, for example).

Quote:

And, there is representation in the government for many diverse views, be they right, left, or just wacky.

Again, not quite right. What you describe here is a multi-party state and would apply to America if, say, Buchannan and the Greens built up electoral support to the point where they could wield effective power, at least sometimes, over the winning Repubs or Dems.

Quote:

Unlike in a parliamentary system, in our government, you have to come down on one side or the other.
You were either fer it or agin it.

I'm afraid I don't really understand your point or logic here. Many Republicans are dead against the Iraq war. Many Dems support it. That's true in the populace and in the House and Senate. Perhaps you mean to suggest that in a deeply divided two-party situation there will be strong forces at work pushing individuals towards a firm position for or against. Sure. But that is the situation in America and still folks are at least somewhat resilient about across-the-boards allegiance.

Quote:

Therefore the melding of opinions and consensus of action while allowing the few strident dissenters to have their ineffectual say is not a characteristic of American government.

Sorry, I've read this a few times but am not sure what claim you are making. Winner takes all?

0 Replies

Quote:

There could be any number of reasons that Ms. Hutchinson replied as she did. She also made the comment just days (hours even) before the election that she was quite confident of a Bush victory. I'm on record with similar feelings. There's always room for "worry", though.

Why advance this pawn? The Republicans built an unprecedented war chest, organized a formidable ground game, and then went all out through to the last minutes because...they weren't at all worried they might get beat? Polling uniformly showed a 20 point lead?

Why not assume her words meant exactly what they appear to mean. The election was going to be close and the winner unassured.

Your second paragraph isn't worthwhile. Other than it provides a means to avoid the question...what other issues were as electorally threatening as was Iraq?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
This is because the ruling party must modify its views enought to at least placate the large minority parties it needs to run the government.

Actually, no. Where a party wins a majority of seats, then they have the voting majority and there is no need to placate or compromise. In the situation where one party gains more seats than any other party, but the total seats won doesn't constitute a majority, that is when the situation you describe obtains (Israel is constantly in such a situation, for example).

Quote:

And, there is representation in the government for many diverse views, be they right, left, or just wacky.

Again, not quite right. What you describe here is a multi-party state and would apply to America if, say, Buchannan and the Greens built up electoral support to the point where they could wield effective power, at least sometimes, over the winning Repubs or Dems.

Quote:

Unlike in a parliamentary system, in our government, you have to come down on one side or the other.
You were either fer it or agin it.

I'm afraid I don't really understand your point or logic here. Many Republicans are dead against the Iraq war. Many Dems support it. That's true in the populace and in the House and Senate. Perhaps you mean to suggest that in a deeply divided two-party situation there will be strong forces at work pushing individuals towards a firm position for or against. Sure. But that is the situation in America and still folks are at least somewhat resilient about across-the-boards allegiance.

Quote:
Therefore the melding of opinions and consensus of action while allowing the few strident dissenters to have their ineffectual say is not a characteristic of American government.

Sorry, I've read this a few times but am not sure what claim you are making. Winner takes all?

All right. It was originally a light hearted comment, but I will attempt to explain.
Yes, winner takes all.
Polarization is a characteristic of American democracy.
The Democrats polarized their party as the party against the war.
The Republicans polarized their party as the party for the war.

Dissenting voices notwithstanding, both positions were clearly understood by the electorate.

This stark polarization is a particular characteristic of our democracy that is not endemic to parliamentary systems.
Yes, of course it exists, but there is much more room for diverse views.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
There could be any number of reasons that Ms. Hutchinson replied as she did. She also made the comment just days (hours even) before the election that she was quite confident of a Bush victory. I'm on record with similar feelings. There's always room for "worry", though.

Why advance this pawn? The Republicans built and unprecedented war chest, organized a formidable ground game, and then went all out through to the last minutes because...they weren't at all worried they might get beat? Polling uniformly showed a 20 point lead?

Why not assume her words meant exactly what they appear to mean. The election was going to be close and the winner unassured.

Your second paragraph isn't worthwhile. Other than it provides a means to avoid the question...what other issues were as electorally threatening as was Iraq?

I did assume her words meant exactly what they appeared to mean. She was "worried". I'm sure she wasn't the only one.

Maybe I misunderstood your question. Weren't you implying she was worried that the war in Iraq, as an issue, would negatively impact a Bush victory?

My second paragraph is nothing more than a partial list of my "concerns". Again, I doubt I was the only one "worried" that some of the electorate might buy into that malarkey. I was wrong. The majority saw through it just as I did.

0 Replies

Fine. What other issues were as electorally threatening as was Iraq?

0 Replies

Quote:

You were either fer it or agin it.

And UhMurka comes out agin the homaseckshuls marryin'.

Praise God.

0 Replies

The exit polls indicate that those who cast votes for Kerry either did so because they were against the war in Iraq (or felt it was going badly), or they were voting against Bush, or they felt the economy was doing poorly. This is per a poll done at MSNBC.

Of those that cast their vote for Bush, Zogby says, "As it turns out, the exit polls suggest that more voters listed "moral values" as their most important issue even though it barely registered in our pre-election poll or, for that matter, in our post-election surveys, either."

I wasn't polled and none of the reasons listed above affected how I voted.

Although it's clear to me that you will continue to harbor the idea that the war in Iraq was central to the election, it's my opinion that depending on the voter, one could "fill in the blank" with just about any of the issues, whether it's the economy, the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, moral values, foreign policy, etc.

Perhaps you're right and Ms. Hutchinson was referring to the war in Iraq when she made her "worry" comment. Perhaps she was referring to a combination of issues. We'll most likely never know.

0 Replies

Craven, several pages back you mentioned that your ideas for strengthening Social Security differed from the Bush administration's. I'd be interested in reading your views, if you've talked about them on a2k, or in another thread, another time.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Lash wrote:
Bush doesn't have to satisfy anybody's demands now. He's a free agent.

Bush is a Republican, and the Republicans are not free agents. IMO, he will have some concern for the future of his party even if his own presidential future is a done deal.

My response was to someone's assertion that Bush had better get in line to appease the right wing of the GOP.

As I said--he's a free agent. He didn't make them any promises and owes them nothing. Even if he went full tilt toward stem cell research, and left abortion rights on the table, untouched--and changed his mind about Gay Marriage, and the Righties screamed and threatened--they'll never vote Dem. The worst they would do is not vote--IF BUSH WAS RUNNING. In 2008, a new GOP candidate will have to choose how to deal with them. Standing by my statement.

They won't leave the GOP because of one Republican.

0 Replies

"that Bush had better get in line to appease the right wing of the GOP."

Please tell me Bush is ON the right wing! They get righter????!!!

0 Replies

http://www.gopusa.com/activist/pollvault/

one of my favourite sites to poke around at
always energizing

0 Replies

GOPUSA Poll
What should be the single most important priority for the Bush administration in the next four years?
Winning the war on terror
-- 37%

Stabilizing Iraq and bringing the troops home
-- 14%

Lowering the deficit
-- 1%

Protecting marriage as between a man and a woman
-- 11%

Continuing the fight to overturn Roe v Wade
-- 12%

Tort reform
-- 2%

Health care
-- 1%

Reforming of Social Security
-- 1%

Reforming the tax system
-- 7%

Retaining the president's tax cuts
-- 1%

Insuring growth of the economy
-- 2%

Education
-- 0%

Illegal Immigration
-- 7%

Healthcare? Social Security? Education? that's just piffle.

0 Replies

http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeser/cst-edt-roes06.html
Enjoy this one, msLowan.

quote: The elitist snob Garry Wills is distressed that more Americans believe in the doctrine of Virgin Birth than evolution -- for which I say huzzah.

0 Replies

My lord - I can't believe it.

0 Replies

Did Americans expect this???

Attorney general quits US cabinet

Further cabinet changes are expected

US Attorney General John Ashcroft has resigned from the Bush cabinet, the White House has announced.

Secretary for Commerce, Don Evans, has also quit his post.

They are the first departures from President Bush's cabinet since he was re-elected for another four-year term last Tuesday.

Mr Ashcroft, in a letter announcing his departure, said the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror had been achieved.

I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons

John Ashcroft

Correspondents in Washington say further cabinet changes are expected as President Bush prepares for his second term.

The BBC's Ian Pannell, in Washington, said neither announcement came as a surprise to Washington insiders.

'Objective achieved'

Mr Ashcroft, who has been a lightening-rod for criticism in the administration, wrote in a five-page handwritten letter to Mr Bush that "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved".

"Yet I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration," said Mr Ashcroft.

Evans is Bush's long-time friend from Texas

Meanwhile, Mr Evans wrote to the president that "while the promise of your second term shines bright, I have concluded with deep regret that it is time for me to return home".

Both Mr Ashcroft, 62, and Mr Evans, 58, have served in the Bush cabinet from the start of the administration in 2000.

Mr Ashcroft helped to lead the US fight against terror after the 11 September 2001 attacks.

He drew up the Patriot Act, which gave the FBI and other agencies powers to tap phones, access private medical and library records, track internet usage and detain immigrants.

The president has responded by saying that he appreciated their service.

There will now be a process of looking for replacements, with suggestions that the administration will be looking to make the appointments as soon as possible, our correspondent says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/3997987.stm

0 Replies

Moishe said

Quote:

All right. It was originally a light hearted comment, but I will attempt to explain.
Yes, winner takes all.
Polarization is a characteristic of American democracy.
The Democrats polarized their party as the party against the war.
The Republicans polarized their party as the party for the war.

Dissenting voices notwithstanding, both positions were clearly understood by the electorate.

This stark polarization is a particular characteristic of our democracy that is not endemic to parliamentary systems.
Yes, of course it exists, but there is much more room for diverse views.

I'm afraid I don't think that's so. Note the polarized views on the war in Britain or Canada (though in both instances, the citizens against the war constitute very large majorities).

America presently appears very polarized, because it is presently. This hasn't always been the case. But in a more general sense, how could such a situation not obtain, at least very often, in a two-party system?

Further, if you look at the histories of America vs Canada, two countries which one might think ought to end up looking rather alike, their origins being so similar, it doesn't make much sense to attribute many differences to republican/parliamentary style uniquenesses. Other factors - a revolution for independence, a civil war - seem rather more important.

0 Replies

Looking ahead to Bush's second term...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know