Republican Party makeup

[John Adams]

Good job to Bush and the Republicans and all that. I'm now 0-4 in presidential elections, having at least twice voted for major party candidates.

 

How does this really strong Republican alliance between the less intrusive gov't and more intrusive gov't continue to exist? I'm really curious. It seems like the big tent has two factions: the Bush/Ashcroft people whose vision of American government is that it needs to provide a moral compass vs. the Guiliani/Schwarzenaeger crowd whose focus is on getting government out of our lives.

 

I like the later bunch, but they are not in control, which is really obvious from this election, in which the Christian Republicans showed up in droves to help Bush win a solid victory.

 

In 1992, Perot showed that schism when he ran- drawing the small gov't people out of the ranks and dividing Bush I's base. Will the Republicans ever schism between the big government moral compass types and the small government people?

 

(BTW, I think the Democrats are really rudderless now- this was their Take back America election and they got whupped. They don't have, at the moment, one candidate they could say is the future of the party.)

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

(BTW, I think the Democrats are really rudderless now- this was their Take back America election and they got whupped. They don't have, at the moment, one candidate they could say is the future of the party.)

98817[/snapback]

 

 

Exactly, this is why I'm so ebullient today. The Democrats have finally...>FINALLY< in my lifetime fallen to pieces. It's gonna be sweet to see that Joe Lockhart look like he ate a turd.

[spidey]

Good job to Bush and the Republicans and all that. I'm now 0-4 in presidential elections, having at least twice voted for major party candidates.

 

How does this really strong Republican alliance between the less intrusive gov't and more intrusive gov't continue to exist? I'm really curious. It seems like the big tent has two factions: the Bush/Ashcroft people whose vision of American government is that it needs to provide a moral compass vs. the Guiliani/Schwarzenaeger crowd whose focus is on getting government out of our lives.

 

I like the later bunch, but they are not in control, which is really obvious from this election, in which the Christian Republicans showed up in droves to help Bush win a solid victory.

 

In 1992, Perot showed that schism when he ran- drawing the small gov't people out of the ranks and dividing Bush I's base.  Will the Republicans ever schism between the big government moral compass types and the small government people? 

 

(BTW, I think the Democrats are really rudderless now- this was their Take back America election and they got whupped. They don't have, at the moment, one candidate they could say is the future of the party.)

98817[/snapback]

John I agree with you on the GOP shift so far to the right, however in the democrats attempt to take back america they ran the most liberal candidate they could find. I guess they hoped him being a practicing catholic would help with that religous group.

 

One can only hope that a schism in both parties occurs and maybe a true centrist party or reform party can be formed, I feel that is the only hope for America. Will be interesting to hear Rudy trying to later divorce himself from Biush when the right wing sends forth their candidate in 2008

[John Adams]

Exactly, this is why I'm so ebullient today. The Democrats have finally...>FINALLY< in my lifetime fallen to pieces. It's gonna be sweet to see that Joe Lockhart look like he ate a turd.

98837[/snapback]

 

We could easily both be jumping the gun on that prediction. Kerry was a crappy candidate- Dean would have had a better chance at winning. And in 1988, who could have predicted that the governer of Arkansas would be the next president? Maybe 2008 is the year of Obama.

[Mark VI]

We could easily both be jumping the gun on that prediction. Kerry was a crappy candidate- Dean would have had a better chance at winning. And in 1988, who could have predicted that the governer of Arkansas would be the next president? Maybe 2008 is the year of Obama.

98871[/snapback]

 

It will probably be than man you mentioned in your original post. Rudy G.

[BuffaloBorn1960]

It's gonna be sweet to see that Joe Lockhart look like he ate a turd.

98837[/snapback]

The same as that has been his diet for years...

[checkmate]

I had the same thought about the Republican Party. The religious right brought home this election for Bush. In 2008, when there will be primaries galore, I hope the division between the liberal Republicans like Guiliani becomes paramount. I am a tried and true democrat, but certainly would consider voting for a person like Guiliani or McCain. I just don't ever see a Republican like that getting out of the primary.

 

 

While I wish Kerry won, I am glad that someone got a majority of the popular vote.

[MichFan]

(BTW, I think the Democrats are really rudderless now- this was their Take back America election and they got whupped. They don't have, at the moment, one candidate they could say is the future of the party.)

Maybe 2008 is the year of Obama.

Obama needs more time on the shelf. I'd see him more likely being the candidate in 2012 or 2016. But he could be VP on the next ticket.

 

The future of the Democrat party now lies with how deeply they are willing to assess the situation and make changes. The electorate has consistently taken care of problems for them (e.g., Gore, Daschle, Kerry), now they need to be proactive and clean house. If they want another election like this year, they won't change a thing and then will come back with Hillary in 2008. If they want a chance at winning in 2008, they will look to new and more moderate faces such as Evan Bayh. In this election, Bayh would have held the Gore states just as easily as Kerry did, but he would have won Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa as well which would have led to a lanslide win. The party of Clinton and McAuliffe needs to enter the 21st century to get back in the game.

[John Adams]

Obama needs more time on the shelf.  I'd see him more likely being the candidate in 2012 or 2016.  But he could be VP on the next ticket.

 

The future of the Democrat party now lies with how deeply they are willing to assess the situation and make changes.  The electorate has consistently taken care of problems for them (e.g., Gore, Daschle, Kerry), now they need to be proactive and clean house.  If they want another election like this year, they won't change a thing and then will come back with Hillary in 2008.  If they want a chance at winning in 2008, they will look to new and more moderate faces such as Evan Bayh.  In this election, Bayh would have held the Gore states just as easily as Kerry did, but he would have won Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa as well which would have led to a lanslide win.  The party of Clinton and McAuliffe needs to enter the 21st century to get back in the game.

98906[/snapback]

 

Yeah- it's a funny thing about Clinton that he wasn't that liberal on many issues. He signed into law welfare reform. He was fiscally pretty conservative, and didn't push to spend the surpluses the economoy of the 90s gave him.

 

Clinton would have killed Bush.

[SDS]

Yeah- it's a funny thing about Clinton that he wasn't that liberal on many issues. He signed into law welfare reform. He was fiscally pretty conservative, and didn't push to spend the surpluses the economoy of the 90s gave him.

 

Clinton would have killed Bush.

98953[/snapback]

 

Stellar analysis....

 

Not.

 

Clinton was a souless prick - just like Kerry. The 1994 election and the Congress that was swept in - changed Mr. Clinton's agenda REAL fast. Clinton put Clinton first and that meant re-election at all costs. Whatever issue he needed to support to gain re-election is exactly what he did.

[John Adams]

Stellar analysis....

 

Not.

 

Clinton was a souless prick - just like Kerry.  The 1994 election and the Congress that was swept in - changed Mr. Clinton's agenda REAL fast.  Clinton put Clinton first and that meant re-election at all costs.  Whatever issue he needed to support to gain re-election is exactly what he did.

99170[/snapback]

 

There's no denying that Bill loved Bill, but there's also no denying that the current admin grew the size of govt more than Bill. Even if you don't count homeland security. That's pretty shocking- so call Clinton a liberal all you want, but the true big government guy just got reelected.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Clinton was a souless prick - just like Kerry.  The 1994 election and the Congress that was swept in - changed Mr. Clinton's agenda REAL fast.  Clinton put Clinton first and that meant re-election at all costs.  Whatever issue he needed to support to gain re-election is exactly what he did.

99170[/snapback]

 

Bingo. Clinton didn't want to be president to lead America. Clinton wanted to be president to get famous, get rich, and to get chicks (not necessarily in that order). He took polls and told us lemmings whatever we wanted to hear to get re-elected. His charisma also went a long way with the hotpockets crowd to get re-elected because Dole was about as exciting as two old people in their 80's doing the hibbity-jibbity. If it was Bush Jr instead of Dole in that election, I doubt seriously if Clinton is re-elected.

[GG]

....

 

How does this really strong Republican alliance between the less intrusive gov't and more intrusive gov't continue to exist? I'm really curious. It seems like the big tent has two factions: the Bush/Ashcroft people whose vision of American government is that it needs to provide a moral compass vs. the Guiliani/Schwarzenaeger crowd whose focus is on getting government out of our lives.

 

......

98817[/snapback]

 

I agree about the split in the GOP between the neocons & paleocons, but I would not classify Rudy/Arnie in the paleo con world. It's impossible for them to be Buchananites coming from NY/CA.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Stellar analysis....

 

Not.

 

Clinton was a souless prick - just like Kerry.  The 1994 election and the Congress that was swept in - changed Mr. Clinton's agenda REAL fast.  Clinton put Clinton first and that meant re-election at all costs.  Whatever issue he needed to support to gain re-election is exactly what he did.

99170[/snapback]

 

Clinton BAD! haha *yawn*

[John Adams]

Bingo. Clinton didn't want to be president to lead America. Clinton wanted to be president to get famous, get rich, and to get chicks (not necessarily in that order). He took polls and told us lemmings whatever we wanted to hear to get re-elected. His charisma also went a long way with the hotpockets crowd to get re-elected because Dole was about as exciting as two old people in their 80's doing the hibbity-jibbity. If it was Bush Jr instead of Dole in that election, I doubt seriously if Clinton is re-elected.

99200[/snapback]

 

I preferred Dole over Clinton; I wouldn't vote for George Bush Jr. if you and Scott were running against him. Clinton was not the divider Bush is; I can't imagine Clinton losing the undecideds to Bush.

[SDS]

Clinton BAD! haha    *yawn*

99221[/snapback]

 

I wish I could say I was laughing on election eve 1994, but I was too busy crying those tears of joy.

 

Support Bill all you want - he was the BEST thing that ever happened to the Republican Party. He single handedly delivered a Republican majority for at least a generation....

 

But hey, he got re-elected!

[stuckincincy]

Good job to Bush and the Republicans and all that. I'm now 0-4 in presidential elections, having at least twice voted for major party candidates.

 

How does this really strong Republican alliance between the less intrusive gov't and more intrusive gov't continue to exist? I'm really curious. It seems like the big tent has two factions: the Bush/Ashcroft people whose vision of American government is that it needs to provide a moral compass vs. the Guiliani/Schwarzenaeger crowd whose focus is on getting government out of our lives.

 

I like the later bunch, but they are not in control, which is really obvious from this election, in which the Christian Republicans showed up in droves to help Bush win a solid victory.

 

In 1992, Perot showed that schism when he ran- drawing the small gov't people out of the ranks and dividing Bush I's base.  Will the Republicans ever schism between the big government moral compass types and the small government people? 

 

(BTW, I think the Democrats are really rudderless now- this was their Take back America election and they got whupped. They don't have, at the moment, one candidate they could say is the future of the party.)

98817[/snapback]

 

Brokaw, guest on Imus's show commented this morning that in his travels, he perceived that religious Americans felt that the Dem's have for some times denigrated and mocked them.

[SDS]

Brokaw, guest on Imus's show commented this morning that in his travels, he perceived that religious Americans felt that the Dem's have for some times denigrated and mocked them.

99261[/snapback]

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... and I perceive the sun rises in the East.

 

Thanks Tom. Can't wait for more earth shaking insight.

[Paco]

Clinton was not the divider Bush is;

 

America didn't get attacked on its own soil on Clinton's clock.

 

Well...not literally, anyway.

 

You can't compare the two. You have no idea what Clinton would have done had he been president during a 9/11-type attack. I don't know why people seem to forget that we were attacked early on in Bush's presidency. It's like we've completely forgotten the effect it had on the economy...jobs lost...the wars we wage.'

 

(Ding! Woops, there's the microwave. Gotta go.)

[Gavin in Va Beach]

America didn't get attacked on its own soil on Clinton's clock.

 

Well...not literally, anyway.

 

You can't compare the two. You have no idea what Clinton would have done had he been president during a 9/11-type attack. I don't know why people seem to forget that we were attacked early on in Bush's presidency. It's like we've completely forgotten the effect it had on the economy...jobs lost...the wars we wage.'

 

(Ding! Woops, there's the microwave. Gotta go.)

99286[/snapback]

 

Actually...the did try to blow up the WTC with a truck bomb the first time. And one could argue that bombing naval ships and embassies are tantamount to attacking American soil. Clinton's response? 'Look at the breasts on that bimbo.'

[OGTEleven]

Good job to Bush and the Republicans and all that. I'm now 0-4 in presidential elections, having at least twice voted for major party candidates.

 

How does this really strong Republican alliance between the less intrusive gov't and more intrusive gov't continue to exist? I'm really curious. It seems like the big tent has two factions: the Bush/Ashcroft people whose vision of American government is that it needs to provide a moral compass vs. the Guiliani/Schwarzenaeger crowd whose focus is on getting government out of our lives.

 

I like the later bunch, but they are not in control, which is really obvious from this election, in which the Christian Republicans showed up in droves to help Bush win a solid victory.

 

In 1992, Perot showed that schism when he ran- drawing the small gov't people out of the ranks and dividing Bush I's base.  Will the Republicans ever schism between the big government moral compass types and the small government people? 

 

(BTW, I think the Democrats are really rudderless now- this was their Take back America election and they got whupped. They don't have, at the moment, one candidate they could say is the future of the party.)

98817[/snapback]

 

 

While I generally agree that Bush has not done enough to limit spending, I think there are more things in play than you mention.

 

First and foremost is terrorism/Iraq/Islamo-fascism. I think anyone that believes this is an important issue would have to reluctantly table their concerns in the other areas. To me the differences in approach to this problem were profound and favored Bush overwhelmingly. I was likely not alone in my opinion on this matter. Weighing this against "sending a message" on fiscal conservatism was not difficult. There was no evidence in Kerry's record that he'd be any more fiscally conservative than Bush anyway. Quite the contrary.

 

Next, the opportunities for Bush to limit spending are squelched from many angles. First, Congress spends the money. Bush could certainly do A LOT more to provide better guidance here. Also however, there are still many "third rail" topics when it comes to spending cuts. Social Security is the most obvious. Any change at all would be spun out of control and quite possibly cost a candidate the election. That is our fault, not the candidate's. There are other areas as well. A better use of the bully pulpit on topics like these is certainly desirable.

 

Finally, Kerry had a few open doors to election that he never walked through. I take that to mean he doesn't see them as important. Illegal immigration is the most stark. There are many people in this country concerned with it at many levels (economic, security, education, health care, etc.). It got nary a mention from either candidate. Unlike Social Security, a strong committment to fixing this problem would have been viewed very positively.

 

To me, the direction the Republicans take over the next four years will be determined by events. Will they be forced into being primarily a "security" party? Probably. The Dems get to decide their course of action. If they stand up on security and US interest along with trying to propose some real (non-communistic) approaches to the demographically driven entitlement problems, they will gain. I doubt they'll do that. My guess is that they move further left.

[MelissaInPhilly]

Exactly, this is why I'm so ebullient today. The Democrats have finally...>FINALLY< in my lifetime fallen to pieces. It's gonna be sweet to see that Joe Lockhart look like he ate a turd.

98837[/snapback]

 

But he didn't win Pennsylvania, probably because the turnout in Democratic Philadelphia and Pittsburgh was so huge.

[John Adams]

Actually...the did try to blow up the WTC with a truck bomb the first time. And one could argue that bombing naval ships and embassies are tantamount to attacking American soil. Clinton's response? 'Look at the breasts on that bimbo.'

99295[/snapback]

 

Actually, he launched cruise missles at Osama.

[BuffaloBorn1960]

Actually, he launched cruise missles at Osama.

99502[/snapback]

Yeah otherwise known as the fire and forget approach....

 

Unfortunately Osama didn't forget...

[alg]

America didn't get attacked on its own soil on Clinton's clock.

 

Well...not literally, anyway.

 

You can't compare the two. You have no idea what Clinton would have done had he been president during a 9/11-type attack.

99286[/snapback]

 

Actually, we know exactly what Clinton would have done if America was attacked on his watch. If I am not mistaken, embassy's are considered an extension of a country's territory. We had multiple attacks on our territories in Africa during his watch. This on top of the original WTC bombing.

 

People seem to forget this point. We should have been kicking a$$ and taking names even then. But no, Bubba's too busy getting a hummer and pardoning people like Mark Rich, one of the biggest thieves in US history.

 

Sorry, but Bill was about being popular, not making the tough choices needed to become a true leader. Yet the Dem's cling to him like a pup to it's mother? They have no idea how much Rep's see Clinton as one of the key architects of the destruction of America's moral fabric...

[John Adams]

While I generally agree that Bush has not done enough to limit spending, I think there are more things in play than you mention.

 

First and foremost is terrorism/Iraq/Islamo-fascism.  I think anyone that believes this is an important issue would have to reluctantly table their concerns in the other areas.  To me the differences in approach to this problem were profound and favored Bush overwhelmingly.  I was likely not alone in my opinion on this matter.  Weighing this against "sending a message" on fiscal conservatism was not difficult.  There was no evidence in Kerry's record that he'd be any more fiscally conservative than Bush anyway.  Quite the contrary.

 

Next, the opportunities for Bush to limit spending are squelched from many angles.  First, Congress spends the money.  Bush could certainly do A LOT more to provide better guidance here.  Also however, there are still many "third rail" topics when it comes to spending cuts.  Social Security is the most obvious.  Any change at all would be spun out of control and quite possibly cost a candidate the election.  That is our fault, not the candidate's.  There are other areas as well.  A better use of the bully pulpit on topics like these is certainly desirable.

 

Finally, Kerry had a few open doors to election that he never walked through.  I take that to mean he doesn't see them as important.  Illegal immigration is the most stark.  There are many people in this country concerned with it at many levels (economic, security, education, health care, etc.).  It got nary a mention from either candidate.  Unlike Social Security, a strong committment to fixing this problem would have been viewed very positively. 

 

To me, the direction the Republicans take over the next four years will be determined by events.  Will they be forced into being primarily a "security" party?  Probably.  The Dems get to decide their course of action.  If they stand up on security and US interest along with trying to propose some real (non-communistic) approaches to the demographically driven entitlement problems, they will gain.  I doubt they'll do that.  My guess is that they move further left.

99455[/snapback]

 

 

Although we voted differently, I agree with this too.

[Mickey]

John I agree with you on the GOP shift so far to the right, however in the democrats attempt to take back america they ran the most liberal candidate they could find.  I guess they hoped him being a practicing catholic would help with that religous group. 

 

One can only hope that a schism in both parties occurs and maybe a true centrist party or reform party can be formed, I feel that is the only hope for America.  Will be interesting to hear Rudy trying to later divorce himself from Biush when the right wing sends forth their candidate in 2008

98839[/snapback]

The most liberal candidate we could find?!?!!??!

 

No, that would have been Howard Dean. We rejected him because he was too liberal and instead nominated a slightly left of center candidate with a good military bio and a dead center VP in Edwards. As soon as that happened the republican operation to tag them as the most liberal of the liberals was thrown into high gear. No matter who the democrats nominate, unless perhaps they resurrect George Wallace and give him the nod, the republicans will tar and feather them as extremist liberals. No matter how far right the democrats move, the republicans can always take a step further to the right themselves.

 

If Richard Nixon was running today on the same positions he had in 1968 and 1972 he would, by comparison to modern day republicans, be a flaming liberal. Hell, Dole used to be the extreme righty back in '88 but by '96 he was considered a moderate republican.

[Mickey]

Actually, he launched cruise missles at Osama.

99502[/snapback]

John, I am sure you remember the deafening battle cry from the right to go after terrorists and how they applauded his cruise missile attacks against our enemies, don't you? Why I remember well all the public speeches given by Newt and company about getting tougher on terrorists. Didn't he publicly call for an invasion of Afghanistan? Didn't he? Ohhhhhhhh riiiiiigggghhhhhttt, I forgot, he and the rest of the right had their noses buried in the President's pants so far they couldn't be bothered with little things like national security.

 

I seem to remember the President's lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court that the Jones suit should be delayed until after he left office to keep it from being a distraction to a President who has more important concerns and because such civil suits could be used as a political weapon against sitting Presidents. Hmmmmm in retrospect, maybe we could have waited a few more years to see that case come to a conclusion.

[BillsNYC]

Kerry was a crappy candidate- Dean would have had a better chance at winning.

98871[/snapback]

 

Actually, the Bush campaign was DYING to run against Dean, they had an amazing ammount of ammo to destroy him. When Kerry won the primary, the Bush team was quite nervous.

[BuffOrange]

Good job to Bush and the Republicans and all that. I'm now 0-4 in presidential elections, having at least twice voted for major party candidates.

98817[/snapback]

 

Can you bet on the Patriots this week?

[BillsNYC]

Obama needs more time on the shelf.  I'd see him more likely being the candidate in 2012 or 2016.  But he could be VP on the next ticket.

98906[/snapback]

 

I think Edwards was a lesson that Obama needs to wait a good ammount of time before joining a vp ticket or anything higher than a senate seat.

 

Let's be honest, the guy had one good speech, he could be the Rob Johnson of politics.

[BillsNYC]

Actually, he launched cruise missles at Osama.

99502[/snapback]

 

cough..Wag the Dog...cough

[VABills]

I guess they hoped him being a practicing catholic would help with that religous group. 

98839[/snapback]

 

Practicing, meaning he goes to a Catholic church sometimes on Sunday, probably as often as he shows up to vote in the Senate. He was showing up to "other" churches during the campaign. Any "real" Catholic knows that attending another denominations church does not relieve you from attending a "Catholic" Church on Sunday.

 

His practice of being a Catholic leaves a lot to be desired, by those of us that are practicing Catholics. I am not judging him, just saying that his being a Catholic would not sway my vote unless he were a very devote and humble person in the Church.

[stuckincincy]

John, I am sure you remember the deafening battle cry from the right to go after terrorists and how they applauded his cruise missile attacks against our enemies, don't you?  Why I remember well all the public speeches given by Newt and company about getting tougher on terrorists. Didn't he publicly call for an invasion of Afghanistan?  Didn't he?  Ohhhhhhhh riiiiiigggghhhhhttt, I forgot, he and the rest of the right had their noses buried in the President's pants so far they couldn't be bothered with little things like national security.

 

I seem to remember the President's lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court that the Jones suit should be delayed until after he left office to keep it from being a distraction to a President who has more important concerns and because such civil suits could be used as a political weapon against sitting Presidents.  Hmmmmm in retrospect, maybe we could have waited a few more years to see that case come to a conclusion.

114748[/snapback]

 

Have some Enfamil. Or get a firearm and kill us vermin.

[Mickey]

Have some Enfamil.  Or get a firearm and kill us vermin.

114805[/snapback]

Nooooo. I shall instead convert you into a zombie, powerless to resist my bidding.

[BuffaloBorn1960]

I forgot, he and the rest of the right had their noses buried in the President's pants so far they couldn't be bothered with little things like national security.

 

114748[/snapback]

You are confused... That was Monica

 

And because of his didtraction that we were more vulnerable.... Do you think sendng a few "Fire and Forget" missles would work... Clinton Did because he fired them and then forgot....

 

Treated it like a stain on a blue dress...

[stuckincincy]

Nooooo.  I shall instead convert you into a zombie, powerless to resist my bidding. 

114862[/snapback]

 

"It was a Zombie Jamboree, took place in the NY cemetary

Zombies from all parts of the island

Some of them were great calypso-ese

Since the season was cannibal

They got together in Baccanal,

 

And they were singing

Back to back, belly to belly

Well I don't give a damn cause I'm stone dead already

Back to back, belly to belly, It's a Zombie Jamboree

 

One female zombie she wouldn't behave

See how she's dancing out of the grave

In one hand she's holding a quart of rum

The other hand was knocking a conga drum

 

You know the lead singer starts to make his rhyme....

 

..etc.,

 

We do the limbo!

 

Hey hey hey hey!