POLL: Looking Ahead to 2008

Remove all ads!

Is someone who calls a bigot a bigot a bigot against bigots? (Hah! try *that* one out for size!)

Sure, there has been some gratuitous Bush-bashing on these boards. But your attempt to equate all of the posts with mindless Bush-bashing and "hatred" is frankly a little offensive, especially as a number of the posts have been thoughtful.

False.

Really, what does this mean? Acceptance as in accepting defeat, accepting that "the left has lost touch with America,"and "getting with the program?" Sure, more people voted for Bush than for Clinton or Reagan, but more people voted for Kerry than voted for Clinton and Reagan as well, and these people aren't going to roll over and go away.

 

@Bion

I don't include you in those I criticize. I've found your comments to be measured and thoughtful.

I am disappointed that you didn't get my War of 1812 analogy.

 

This is such a meaningless argument. It is the same thing as saying a candy bar costs more than it did 10 years ago. There are more people to vote today than there ever were.

IMO it is hard to deny that very few votes were cast for either candidate in this election; they were cast against the other one. It was the choice of the lesser of 2 evils. Kerry never defined himself, Bush put out what he stood for and the majority of people decided that a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush (or shrub ).

The majority of Americans do not like extremists on either side. We want a moderate who will protect or freedoms, our children, not tax us to poverty, not spend us to oblivion, and make us feel good about ourselves. We do not want socialized medicine, federalized industry, and morality legislated. We want common sense laws, economics, and most of all, for big brother to stay of our business.

In summary, I think that 25% of the 49% who voted for Skerry will gladly roll over and vote for a moderate common sense Republican, and I think that 25% of the 51% who voted for Bushlite will abandon the "religious right" if a moderate, fiscally conservative Democrat is rolled out.

Not that I think I will see it in my lifetime!

Flame suit on!

 

/me takes deep breath

Darkwolf, Hacken Slash - don't consider this a personal attack. I just want you to defend your statements, that's all

@ Hacken Slash:

Personally, I've got a good excuse from this one (see "From"). But I still fail to see why one should trump the other. Of course you should be looking out for your own nation's interests, but I don't see how nationalism excludes secular values. A commitment to morality is surely something that should go hand in hand with patriotism, even though it's commonly referred to as the last refuge of a political scoundrel. If anything, pride in liberal values speaks volumes about the sort of America that "liberal-first" Americans want to live in.

I'll cop that for my one post that did this - although I'd contend that hatred is inaccurate. Bigoted and prejudiced, I'll wear that. Of course, I may be characterised as an ignorant anti-American gay Francophile for it (maybe not on these boards, though), but that's nothing.

@ Darkwolf:

Then I have one question for them: why did they vote for Bush?

 

NS:

I am really trying not to be flippant here, but I answered that question in my post above.

To dig a little deeper, specifically addressing what you quote, of the items I listed, the majority of Americans see Kerry as worse than Bush.

Perceptions of Kerry:

Pros:
Not Bush

War veteran

Cons:
Has a plan for everything, which would have been a pro, but he never could communicate what they were.

Was going to do things differently than Bush, which really equated to doing all the same things that Bush was, but faster and more expensively.

Seen as a BIG tax and spend "Massachusetts" liberal.

Could be on every side of the issue (the famous flip flop)

Opportunist, he did marry for money twice.

Wimpy

Too negative, everything is bad, nothing is good, and believed that if he was not elected the world would fall apart.

30 years of public service with no record to stand on.

Aristocratic

Perceptions of Bush

Pro:

Get it done leader.

Strong on terrorism

Cuts taxes

Positive on America

Kept the economy going after the accounting scandals and 9-11

Con:
Big time spender.

Doesn't listen to his advisors.

Lacking in intelligence (the IQ kind)

Not polished

Isolationist

Poor businessman

Hypocrite (avoided war by going into the National Guard)

Liar

Uncarring about the lower income earners.

Weak on immigration, control of the boarders.


Those are all I can think of off the top of my head. Before I get flamed, those are PERCEPTIONS, if they were earned or appointed by the opposition is up to debate and is terribly off topic.

The problem for the Democratic Party is that its leadership is convinced that the American people want what they offer. IMO, if the Democrats want to get back in power they either need to be more persuasive in the presentation their message, or find leadership that will take them in a direction that more of the nation believes in. I think that the fastest way back to power would be a coup in the party, and for the new leadership to move the party toward the Libertarian point of view. However as long as the likes of Senator Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, and McAuliffe are the only players fighting for leadership of the Democratic Party, we are doomed to see replays of 2000 and 2004, with one side gaining victory not by earning it, but by being the lesser of two bad choices. It would be so nice to have a candidate that insprired us in the way Reagan did, and to see a large majority of the people of this nation united behind a candidate.

Here is to hoping that a young version Zell Miller will step forward and lead one party or the other.

But then I am

[ November 09, 2004, 20:55: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

So, to put that to the common sense tense, it follows that:

freedoms - Patriot Act

children - No Child Left Behind sorely underfunded

not tax us to poverty - Bush looks good on this point

spend us to oblivion - largest deficit in U.S. history

make us feel good about ourselves - many people are concerned about how the US is viewed by other countries. We feel it relects poorly on us as Americans. And we certainly don't feel good about each other - we are more polarized as a nation than ever before.

No socialized medicine - Um, didn't Bush write the biggest change to Medicare since its inception in the 1960s? Medicare, I would think by definition is socialized medicine, and not many people complain about it

federalized industry - I'll give you that as long as you place the caveat of a few utility companies (Tennessee Valley Authority for example) which is most certainly federalized

no legislation of morality - puh-lease. We've legislated restriction of stem cell research on moral grounds. There is talk about a constitutional amendment to define marriage on moral grounds, and there have been restrictions to abortion on moral grounds.

Common sense laws - well, as long as you aren't talking about Bush's environmental policy, I suppose most of the laws enacted during Bush's administration make some sense.

economics - record deficit, fewer people employed now than four years ago, stock market lower now than four years ago

big brother staying out of business - see Patriot Act.

What's the tally?

Bush's score is 3 to the good, 8 to the bad. What were you saying we were looking for in a president again?

Edit: entered spaces for easier reading

[ November 09, 2004, 21:40: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

"Those are all I can think of off the top of my head. Before I get flamed, those are PERCEPTIONS, if they were earned or appointed by the opposition is up to debate and is terribly off topic."

I will not even legitimize your post by going through those issues from how I think Skerry would have handled them.

 

I need some help. I'm assuming Skerry is supposed to be derogatory, but for the life of me I can't figure it out.

 

Skerry - Scary, as in a very scary choice.

Bush - Shrub

Edwards - Breck Girl

Sorry, I havn't heard one for Cheney.

Somebody help me out!

 

But Darkwolf, it seems that I read your post more carefully than you yourself did. The quotation I took from you was in fact not from the same post where you were stating that they were PERCEPTIONS. It was in your post where you were stating what you felt the American people wanted in a president. If you deign not to legitimize my post with a response, that is certainly your prerogative, but don't quote something you said in an entirely different post that I wasn't even referencing as your reason for doing so. Thanks!

 

Touché, that is what I get for posting at work!

 

@ Darkwolf:

Good response - I should have been as in-depth as Aldeth was in my question. I see it a bit differently (huge surprise), but I think the point about both options being sub-optimal is a fair one. Unfortunately (as I see it), this result is a reflection of the power of populism over participation.

The problems (and the reasons WHY I get so angry) are that "what people want" in several states are issues which will do nothing to help fix the deficit or the hole in the budget, or bring peace in Iraq; and secondly, that the Republicans have done such a masterful job of linking social conservatism and unilateralism to Christian faith to mobilise support. That is a dangerous combination in any state; the only difference between that and and a fundamentalist regime is that the US has elections every four years, and if you can maintain that link and Christian right support, you can gloss over more substantive issues in favour of a faith-based dialogue.

Yes, I'm bitter about this. I'm bitter because the same problem exists in Australia - I'm certainly not pro-Labor, but it's either them or the Liberals, and I can't trust the Liberals. While I won't say that Bush (Episode I) has been an unmitigated disaster, it's hard for me to see how he stacks up better than Kerry (but then again, I have no reliable and unbiased information on US domestic policy). There are huge gaps in my knowledge, but what I do have is overwhelmingly in Kerry's favour.

There was a TV show called "That's My Bush!" where Cheney was called "Evil Dick". Nothing better for that one, sorry.

And BTW, you left out "French-looking" on the Kerry "cons" list.

 

Yes, and look at the election map of 2004. Which states were blue and red? and which states opposed slavery and which ones were for it? Of course, there is Ohio....

If they did away with the term-limits that would mean that BILL could run again.

But here is a serious comment: Cheney will not run, unless the Republicans want the Dems to win for sure. So, what are the odds that Bush will oust him before his four years are up? Shrub will want to do some dealing here and probably hand-pick a successor, giving him the edge before the actual campaign begins. But with Shrub it's hard to say. Still, I think he has already cut a deal with Rudy or John. Or maybe both. Did you see these guys falling all over themselves to support Shurb during the campaign? Remember, TWO slots are going to be open for the Republicans in the next election for prez, so he doesn't necessarily have to dump Cheney at this point. But it would be helpful for the next guy.

If it is McCain then the Dems won't have a chance. Even I would vote for McCain, unless he ran against Howard Dean. But I think the Dems will run this guy:

http://breaux.senate.gov/index_breaux.html

Yeah, he's a good ole' boy - from the South.

 

I apoligize for resurrecting an old thread, but I just saw this.

Hillary in 2008

 

Wow, that was wrong at so many levels!

Seriously, unless the polls show that Hillary doesn't have a chance, she will be there. I heard an interview with Dick Morris (who has had a long term relationship with President Clinton, and is credited by many with being vital to Clinton's second term election and for many of the centrist stances taken by the former President), and he stated that he has no doubt that Hillary will run. He also stated that Hillary scares him because of her dogmatic pursuit of a socialist agenda. If you don't like Bush because he doesn't get or listen to good advise or compromise on his extremist views, get ready for more of it, as Morris claims that Hillary seldom listens to what anyone else has to say and never admits that she might be wrong, even when it is painfully obvious that she is. He stated that while President Clinton was a believer in a more leftist view, he was willing to move to the center to accomplish good things, Hillary is only pretending to move to the center in order to accomplish a leftist agenda.

I just wonder how many people she will be able to fool into believing she is a centrist in the next 4 years...

 

Well, the US could use a good proper socialist leader, sadly I doubt Hillary is that. By any standards but American she would be a rightist, with a little good will maybe a right leaning centrist.

 

Darkwolf, she isn't even close to being a socialist. I say like Joacqin, USA need socialism, but Clinton ain't one.

Darn it, Bill is even more leftist.

 

Schwartzenegger for President! You have to admit it would make foreign policy so much more interesting. Plus, since prancing around in a flight suit is part of the new Presidential role, better to have someone who can at least convincingly fake the "war hero" look.

I agree that the problems with Hilary Clinton go waaaaaaay beyond "she's female". I wouldn't describe her as a socialist economically, but definitely as a collectivist socially, which in my mind is even worse. She would regulate every detail of family life for people's "own good".

I'd be happy with Guiliani or McCain for the Republicans. I really can't imagine Bush getting an end to the term limits through so that he could run again - if ever the American citizenry would have been willing to turf the whole term limits deal, it would have been for Bill Clinton. I don't care who the Democrat candidate is so long as it isn't Hilary. But I'm only a Yank by marriage and I'd tend to vote Libertarian anyway, so my opinion is doubly irrelevant. Can I just say, though, that I totally think Bill Clinton should run for President of France! He'd win in a landslide.

 

Sprite, don't forget that it's Bush that wants to ban homo-marriages and highten security for "people's own good" and other things to "keep the moral in people"(wether they want it or not).