That said, I have a question for you. I'm not really plugged in to the Democratic party in any way, but it's become apparent to me over the last couple of months that liberals are a little upset about President Bush and because of this, the effort to turn out the vote, the energy to see him unelected, seems to be *very* strong. I'm wondering if the same kind of burning desire exists on the conservative side or whether conservatives are basically just approaching this election cycle with the foregone conclusion that of course Bush will win because all those Democratic candidates are just so darn left of center that no one could *possibly* ever vote for them.
I know I invite some kind of kneejerk 'anything you can do, we can do better' kind of responses, and I hope to avoid that since that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just genuinely curious.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about anybody else, but I get the feeling that either there will be some great victory and Bush will ride to a second term on the tide of public acclaim...or there will not, and regardless of any attempt we make the Democrats will ridicule his campaign into oblivion.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
All it will take will be for people to vote the same way they did in 2000 and for Ralph Nader not to run and Bush will lose. So, the big question is, has Bush pushed away more people than he has won over? From the stats I have seen, the election is still pretty much up in the air. People that liked him from the get-go still like him. People that didn't like him from the start still don't like him. The thing is is that I think Bush has pissed off people to a greater degree than I think he has gained adherents. That's a totally subjective observation, of course, which is why I'm looking for other people's subjective observations. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have yet to meet anyone who can give a coherent reason why they think Bush is a good president, but the few I know that think that are fervent about it.
Though you don't get that from the media. What few people they allow to speak against Bush get thirty-second soundbytes, if that, and are usually framed as an extremist minority.
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
As for politics, I have cashed in long ago on whomever promises the bigger tax break for me. Unless of course, it is Ross Perot...
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, from google, the font of all knowledge, I was able to determine that "bastige" is indeed a corruption of "bastard" made popular by the movie Johnny Dangerously. It seems to be in widespread use. Philologists take note.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truthfully, I don't care for Bush much at all. I just can't stand Democratic social policies. Until they change, I can't make myself vote for any Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans take a sharp swing to the left too.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The economy is up. Dow's over 10,000. Unemployment at 4.6%. Saddam Hussein captured. Nader is running.
Tell me again how the Democrats will rocket to victory? I mean...isn't the economy the single biggest indicator of who will be elected? Barring a surprise economic downturn, things will be quite good economically speaking come November 2004.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, the capture of Hussein didn't do anything for Bush's electability. I can dig up the numbers if you like, but then again, they are just one set.
Approval for the war and occupation has been decreasing for some time. It is starting to enter into political liability territory.
The economy may or may not be significant. We'll see. If many people have lost jobs but the jobs they are getting back are just service industry flunky jobs, then they are still going to not be happy campers and may have cause to hold a grudge against a Republican president. This kind of employment was very representative of much of the Clinton job growth, by the way.
Last I saw, Nader was considering running but hadn't decided, and if the article I linked to further up thread is any indication, far fewer Greens are going to be sucked into voting for him again as they were last time if he does run.
I never said the Democrats were going to rocket to victory. I said feeling for Bush appeared to be about the same as when he went into office. I base this upon polls I've seen for job approval. My main thesis was that Democrats/liberals appeared to be working over time to get out the vote (insert graveyard jokes here) and that I hadn't noticed any corresponding vigor on the conserative side. All the conservative sites and commentators I've been to have *appeared* to be very dismissive of the Democratic challengers and very self-assured in the fact that they represent some far left contingent and that real Americans would never vote Democrat and that Bush was some kind of shoe-in. So, I think the vote will probably again be close, but I think the Democrats may win simply because they are going to vote in greater percentages. The feeling among many liberals is that Bush really *is* the devil, while conservatives think that Dean or whoever might be the devil. The difference should be clear.
It will be kind of interesting to see if, in fact, conservative commentators win the presidency for the Democratic challenger. By spinning the Dems as an extremist party, they risk lulling the conservative Republicans into a state of apathy such that they don't vote. I like to think that every time the Rhino goes to stand, the Democrats gain a few more votes. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the fact that Republican Conservatives aren't saying much, that you have seen, is an indicator of Republican Conservatives not doing anything. In fact, I will bet that you don't even pay much attention to Conservatives as much as you think. After all, the media is hardly a Republican Conservative institution and so all that comes out is a muted version of the real thing. Let me tell you, as a Republican Conservative there is a lot of preparing for a huge and ugly fight.
What you see right now is not, as you think, a belief that Bush is a shoe-in. What you are seeing is the calm before the storm. The way Conservatives see it, the Democrats are doing a fine job of doing our job for us during the debates, so we will see who wins. Once that is over, Republicans are not going to go quietly to the polls.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't understand why there aren't more anti-Bush conservatives. It's as if because he's a Republican they can overlook everything he's done.
No, I don't think there's much passion among conservatives for Bush. In fact, I think most secretly realize he's kinda a poor leader. But there IS a passion against liberals, so I think there is a lot of energy aimed at reelecting Bush so liberals won't win.
Energy won't win the election for either side, though. It will require convincing the political center, and the apathetic.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush will win, because mostly conservative people vote. "Get out the vote" movements happen all the time, and it is rather incredible how little they actually work. In fact, one of the only instances that have worked that I can think of is Clinton's win over Bush in the 90's, which I think had very much to do with the Rock the Vote pulling out the twenty-something vote. However, there are always generally more registered Democrats and a higher voting percentage of registered Republicans by far. Bush lost in '92 because of a poor move with taxation, raising taxes even after promising no new taxes. He inherited a recession from his predecessor and had no choice, but the public didn't really care, especially the younger voters.
Will this happen in 2004? It's doubtful, because there is current increasing economic security, even if the deficit is larger than ever, and there is no glaring mistakes that have been made by the president as far as public image. Sure, there are plenty of things that people don't like about the War on Terror, the war in Iraq, or legislation like the Patriot Act, but Bush has done an adequate job making himself look like a competent military leader, a compassionate Commander-in-Chief, and now an effective leader in terms of recovering economically. Does this reflect on genuine progress or capability? Maybe, maybe not. The point is that public image is what counts, and when the count of accomplishments is taken, Bush will claim to have drawn us out of recession, led a successful military campaign, and taken down a dictator in a nation with a long-standing record of tyranny and hostility towards America.
Whether those claims are correct or not are irrelevant, because they are close enough to make it close to impossible for a new candidate to break the incumbency. This isn't an issue of who is right and who is wrong, it's a matter of how elections are won or lost. The election is not going to be won by having musicians make commercials or make political statements at concerts, nor will it be won by debating the rightness of any certain issue. People are going to vote for the proverbial lesser of two evils. Because he hasn't made any large mistakes of yet, Bush's win this next election is almost assured. Judging by the last presidential election is not wise, because that was an election where two non-incumbents vying for the office, where the next will be a little-known challenger and an established incumbent with more funds, more publicity, and two media-covered wars that can both be argued as resounding successes. Once again, whether the wars were successes is almost a separate matter from the reality, because the network news has basically shown the successes. Once again, outside of a very large and public mistake, the 2004 election is pretty much assured.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still don't understand why there aren't more anti-Bush conservatives. It's as if because he's a Republican they can overlook everything he's done.
In all seriousness, Tres-- it is because you don't understand what 'conservative' people value, and where they place ideological weight.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Tres, the odds of getting a candidate other than Bush into the Republican field are very very low, historically speaking. It's Bush or a Democrat, in all probability.
Whoever it was who asked about what social issues I was talking about, now that I've thought about it a while, my only real absolute non-negotiables are abortion and gay rights. Unless the Democrats change their position, or the Republicans find something worse to support, I will never be able to vote for a garden-variety Democrat.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In all seriousness, Tres-- it is because you don't understand what 'conservative' people value, and where they place ideological weight.
Oh, I understand what they value and where they place ideological weight. I just don't understand why they'd do it. I would think it's just common sense (not to mention a basic tenet of conservativism) that the foundations of the country and the protection of that country against foreign attacks are more important in gov't than regulating certain social behavior.
quote:Also, Tres, the odds of getting a candidate other than Bush into the Republican field are very very low, historically speaking. It's Bush or a Democrat, in all probability.
Yes, but the odds are only bad because the Republicans have chosen Bush. They could have picked someone else but didn't.
quote:Oh, I understand what they value and where they place ideological weight.
Just from what you have said so far in the question you wrote shows you don't understand where ideological weight happens to be. As for why Republican Conservatives aren't against Bush? He mainly supports the ideals of Conservatives -- appriciates God and rejects an all-out keeping religion out of government, anti-abortion, military strength against dictators, helping the Country remain autonomous as possible from the United Nations, refusing to give in to extreme environmentalists and of course tax cuts.
As a personality he is strong, appriciative to those who work with him and support him, and down--to-earth. He geniunely seems a nice guy not made that way by the what the polls tell him to be.
Depending on if he gets re-elected and what he does with those next four years, he will become praised by Conservative Republicans above that of Ronald Reagan. He has managed to do what the former president only implied.
posted
I am not a big fan of bush. I think that he has made some extremely poor decisions in various arenas. Nonetheless, like many folks I find the Democratic candidates distasteful. Dean is just frightening with his "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" crap. Kerry feels slimy. Clark seems like a Clinton-wannabe.
I could vote for Liberman, but I doubt that he has a prayer in the primary.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He mainly supports the ideals of Conservatives -- appriciates God and rejects an all-out keeping religion out of government, anti-abortion, military strength against dictators, helping the Country remain autonomous as possible from the United Nations, refusing to give in to extreme environmentalists and of course tax cuts.
Perhaps that's the confusion. The conservatives I've known used to tell me it was all about freedom, individualism, small government, and protecting what makes America great - a claim that isn't too consistent with your list of ideals above.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liberman is the only one I don't feel scared about if he becomes president. However, he still holds too many views I oppose to actually vote for him over Republicans.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell, Dean has a much better record of small government than Bush does. He balanced his budget, and one of the things that involved was reducing state control over (and funding for) local services, leaving those to be taken care of locally, which I consider an excellent move. Bush has managed to increase the meddling of the federal government in local matters such as education, and even without coming anywhere near to fully funding the new requirements is growing the federal budget (and not just militarily).
And, granted from my perspective, at supporting personal freedom Dean has Bush beat six ways from Sunday.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must admit that, as a Conservative, I am more worried about the RIGHT (take that meaning whatever way you want) Government than small government. Both can go to pot faster than you can say "of the people, for the people, by the people."
They may not say it, but Conservatives who say we need a smaller government are actually saying we don't want who happens to be in office right now. Not, however, to say their aren't conservatives who are complaining about too much interference from the Bush administration.
quote:They may not say it, but Conservatives who say we need a smaller government are actually saying we don't want who happens to be in office right now.
I know for a fact (as I have some highly conservative friends who say we need a much smaller governmenet) that that isn't true.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, so those of use who actually want a smaller government are liberals. Thanks for clearing that up .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, they will SAY they want smaller government (and in some things that is true), but as a conservative who talks with conservitives and watches for conservative politics I know what "small government" is code word for. Again, there are probably smaller government Conservatives who really mean it, but usually not.
Perhaps there are two kinds of Conservatives. I live in an area where small government is much less of a concern than particular policies. They also claim the need for "smaller government" when that is far from the main concerns.
posted
I consider true smaller government proponents as libertarians who can lean both right and left on the issues.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm definitely not a libertarian. I'm distinctly for sometimes rather comprehensive government 'interference' in a number of areas. Libertarians are concerned primarily with the size of the impact of government, whereas I'm concerned primarily with the size of the fisc.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess this all goes to show -- you can't put a label on something and expect to have everyone under it conform to the assumed ingredients. On the other hand, you can have enough ingredients to at least consider a label as appropriate.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I talk about small government, I usually mean to imply that greater local control is needed and federal government should be smaller. There are certain purposes for which large is more efficient, but much of the time the opposite is true due to high regional variation. The lower the level of government, the greater freedom to respond to that variation.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
*![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
