Posted on 07/14/2005 5:42:53 PM PDT by Sabramerican
And you know this how? As rt pointed out, the poll numbers were beginning to turn against Clinton during the shutdown "crisis". Probably because many people were finally beginning to realize how unnecessary the federal government was in their lives.
Come to think of it, that's probably why the politicians (regardless of what banner they waved) decided it was time to call it off. Politicians don't like being thought of as irrelevant.
you know this how? As rt pointed out, the poll numbers were beginning to turn against Clinton during the shutdown "crisis". Probably because many people were finally beginning to realize how unnecessary the federal government was in their lives.
_____Clinton was re-elected and remained popular even during Lewinsky...and Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
And the public doesn't want smaller goverment, it wants more effective government.And it gets neither from the Republicans.
rollo tomasi is right. No one can hold the positions you hold without having his highest allegiance be to the party. Clearly your loyalty is to America, but it's a distant second. And on this thread you've proven your loyalty to conservatism is limited to mouthing the words. You're a party apparatchik through and through.
Truth is, conservatism is only valid insofar as it helps the country ...Please explain this statement.
At number #71 you said this was because of conservatives voting for Perot. So which is it? Were the majority of voters in those two elections ideologically conservative or were they not?
and remained popular even during Lewinsky
A good part of the reason for his popularity had to do with the efforts of congressional Republicans. It was they who forced him to scale back welfare, and slow the growth of federal spending in general. He may have taken the credit for it, but the fact remains that he was taking the credit for limiting government, not expanding it. Remember when he said, "The era of big government is over"? It was a lie, of course, but what matters is that he knew that's what the public wanted to hear.
and Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
Bush wasn't exactly the most popular guy in 2000. He was widely regarded as an underachieving privileged son, and his public speaking (in particular his endless repeating of "fuzzy math" and "MediScare" during the debates) didn't do much to remedy that impression. It was only after 9/11 that his approval rating changed for the better. 2000 was definitely a textbook example of an election where people voted NOT for the candidate they liked more, but against the candidate they liked less. Gore was slightly less unpopular than Bush, that's all. Ideology had little to do with it.
If you want an example of an election that illustrates popular views, you need to look at the congressional election of 1994. Keep in mind that most of the time, the turnover rate in Congress is geologically slow. That's because people pretty much have only one issue when voting for Congressmen: how much dough he'll lavish on his district. Everything else is a very distant second. This gives a huge advantage to incumbents, because they're much more likely than some newbie to have the connections necessary to steer the pork in the direction that they want.
What this means is that the people of a district really have to have strong feeling about something if they replace their incumbent Congressman with a challenger. 1994, therefore, was a tremendous achievement for the Republicans. And they didn't do it by promising to be "bipartisan" and "mainstream" and set a "new tone" for "compassionate conservatism". Instead, they hammered hard for limited government.
The 1992 Republican National Convention set the stage for it. Speaker after speaker railed against the overspending and arrogant, power-hungry ways of the Democrats. That didn't enable the GOP to win the election in '92, because of popular discontent with Bush himself, but it clearly started the ball rolling for the Contract with America and the electoral victory two years later.
number #71 you said this was because of conservatives voting for Perot. So which is it? Were the majority of voters in those two elections ideologically conservative or were they not?
___Not. Only part of the Perot
vote was Republican...if you distributed it, you'd probably have found an even split..I think the 2000 election indicates where the country is...slightly to the left..no conservative majority..wuthout 9/11, Bush would have been defeated in 2004.
So in order to maintain power, conservatives have to compromise and that's what "compassionate
conservatism" is all about...Bush jnbew that the public does not want limited government, it wants effective government without waste and with the lowest possible taxes.
No, he's a politicians and politicians don't want limited government. It goes against their nature.
I already showed you how your assumption about the public is incorrect.
One, it is a GLOBAL war on a tactic.
Hence, groups that don't attack Americans are OK.
Look at Pakistan; when Paki Army trained jihadis attack Indians in Kashmir, they're "freedom fighters", when the same crowd attacks Americans in Afghanistan they're terrorists.
And, since the Holy Grail of our foreign policy is democratisation, it's hard for Bush to not say yes to funds for Palestine. Especially after elections have been held.
Look at the bright side, they're only getting a fraction of what Pakistan gets.
So... because they're not our enemies at this very second (even though they're the enemies of our allies), we should give money to them?
And, since the Holy Grail of our foreign policy is democratisation, it's hard for Bush to not say yes to funds for Palestine. Especially after elections have been held.
Thank you for providing another poignant reminder (along with Iran and Venezuela) that "democracy" and "freedom" are not synonymous terms at all.
already showed you how your assumption about the public is incorrect.
___Not persuaded by your evidence, sorry. The closeness of the elections and the fact that the public is against the partial privatization of Social Security indicates that there's not a solid conservative majority out there
I already dealt with that. You can pretend that I haven't if you want, but it doesn't help your position any.
and the fact that the public media is against the partial privatization of Social Security
already dealt with that. You can pretend that I haven't if you want, but it doesn't help your position any.
___I don't buy your citation of polls showing the public turning against Clinton on the shutdown...if they were of this mind set, they wouldn't have rushed to his defense during Lewinsky,
Loook, face it, the public is basically liberal when it comes to social and economic issues...they don't like the GOP..but know that the GOP is tough on national security...so Bush pulled it out in 2004,,,only because of Ohio...one state...pretty slim pickens indeed!
and the fact that the public media is against the partial privatization of Social Security.
____Of course the media is against it....but the public is still shaken by the drastic drop of the Nasdaq back in 2000 and I don't think they are enamored of putting their retirement funds in the market...many 401Ks were shell-shocked in 2000, never recovering.
I already dealt with that, too. Round and round you like to go.
but the public is still shaken by the drastic drop of the Nasdaq back in 2000 and I don't think they are enamored of putting their retirement funds in the market
Except they wouldn't be required to put their funds in the market. It would simply be an option for them. They could either put it in the market, or continue entrusting it to the government like they do now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.