Posted on 03/18/2004 8:41:52 PM PST by Sabertooth
I'd like to see the party moved to the right, but I'm sincerely not sure that it can be done at this time if we hope to win. Perhaps CS knows where to find some statistical data which would prove or disprove this point? I've spent hours searching and have so far been unable to come up with the specific RNC poll which first led me to this conclusion.
During the last election, Al Gore got a bit more than half of the popular vote. Polls now show the "likely vote" about evenly split between Bush & Kerry.
If the majority of the voters actually tend to be more conservative than Bush, how did Gore get so many votes, and why are so many voters considering Kerry? It doesn't make sense.
Polls also show that people tend to "trust" the Democrats more on domestic issues - and the Democrats tend to be more socialistic. This also tells me that the general public is less conservative than many FReepers would like to believe.
I think President Bush is doing what he needs to do to win, and I think if he ran as most FReepers would like him to run, he'd end up as the candidates many of us supported ended up in the 2000 primaries - with very few votes, and asterisks in the footnotes of history.
Face it, in many respects we are the conservative version of Deaniacs.
Entirely possible. I was careful to quantify that what I hear people saying is in no way comparable to a scientific survey.
There are those on FR who claim they don't have anything to do with liberal relatives, and they have no liberal friends. I don't know if you're one of those people or not.
My friends, relatives, acquaintances and coworkers run the gamut from very conservative to apolitical to rather liberal, so I think I do hear a variety of views, but I wouldn't claim to know everything, or even to quantitatively "have my finger on the pulse of America" based on that....
Sure - the same goes for mine. Completely anecdotal.
There are those on FR who claim they don't have anything to do with liberal relatives, and they have no liberal friends. I don't know if you're one of those people or not. My friends, relatives, acquaintances and coworkers run the gamut from very conservative to apolitical to rather liberal, so I think I do hear a variety of views, but I wouldn't claim to know everything, or even to quantitatively "have my finger on the pulse of America" based on that....
Mine do as well. I have some that vote straight Democrat, others that voted Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, and others that are hardcore conservatives. But my knowledge/experience is obviously just as limited as yours...
You have a better option? As you explain it, please also include an explanation of why the practical result of your strategy would not be the election of Kerry.
The problem with this statement, and this whole thread discussion imo, is that each of you is missing a crucial ingredient here. No one in a conservative setting will argue the merits of Kerry over Bush NOW; the problem is that so-called Bush-Bots have proudly been unwilling to listen to these concerns for the last three-and-a-half years. Perhaps over the course of that time, results could have been affected with which we could all live.
Answer a question for me please. What do you think was the single-worst policy change/legislation to come out of Washington during the Clinton administration?
I think the whole notion that people are not free at Freerepublic to discuss issues is, for the most part, a bad rap. When it comes to issues (as opposed to personalities), I see a very wide variety of views expressed.
As I see it, the problems usually result from a poster's decision to personalize an issue either by insulting another poster who has expressed a different opinion or by castigating a politician who has expressed a different opinion, either of which adds little or nothing of substance to the case that the poster is trying to make.
There is more than one way to deal with, say, the Medicare issue. One way is to actually learn something about the bill, discuss both its strengths and weaknesses, and advocate in favor of alternatives that the poster might prefer, including the reasons for which those alternatives might be preferable. Note that with this approach, there is no need to mention the name of any other freeper, there is no need to mention the name of any politician and there is no need to use ShTFIL ("shorthand terms for the ignorant and lazy")
The other way, employing the ShTFIL style, is to begin by associating another freeper with some loathesome condition or disease ("commie," "liberal" "statist," "traitor," etc.), then explaining that the other freeper's position is merely symptomatic of that loathesome condition or disease, then adding that the President (or any other politician) who supports the bill or position in question secretly suffers from the same loathesome condition or disease, then concluding that the freeper and the President and all similar ilk should rot in hell for trying to destroy the poster's country.
Usually, when I see a post pulled around here, it's a variation on the ShTFIL style of posting. ;-)
Look, your first post, and your problem, is TODAY.
We can't change the past 3-1/2 years - they are gone. No point in discussing it right now.
What is your strategy for TODAY?
My strategy? Vote my principles. The real question is what is George Bush going to do TODAY to convince me that a vote for him and a vote for Kerry aren't votes for two different shades of the same color?
I did my part last election. GOP House, Senate, Executive, and (some would argue) Supreme Court. And we got more government entitlements, privacy invasions, and bloat. We've seen them cower to the left when attempting to appoint judges. Sorry. I'm done with them unless I see a change in their actions. The only voice I have - and the only language they understand - is my vote. I intend to use it. I do not intend to reward their further erosion of my childrens' liberties with another term.
IMO it's never going to happen while refusing to recognize that their concerns about Bush all along were, if not right, at least their perogative (and something for which they shouldn't have been shunned).
I think most of you know in your hearts that Bush, while doing some good things, has not been what all American conservatives wanted and needed, and he has taken us for granted (for better or worse). The time to "fix" that might be past, but it's not like no one tried. It wouldn't kill you to acknowledge this.
I do NOT want a fight over this, it's just my opinion and take it for what it's worth. Or not.
Have a nice afternoon!
which side of this 'issue' are you calling wayward? :)
I think most of you know in your hearts that Bush, while doing some good things, has not been what all American conservatives wanted and needed, and he has taken us for granted (for better or worse).
Well, I'm a little confused. It's not like Bush ran as a far-right conservative in 2000. I thought he'd done pretty much what he said he'd do when he was running.
I'm having trouble understanding quite why some people feel that Bush has "let them down".
I haven't liked all he's done domestically, but then again, I didn't expect to, because he was running pretty much to the middle. He's handled the War on Terror and foreign relations very well IMO.
I also can't see how voting for anyone else will accomplish any conservative goals -- I wish someone would explain that to me.
It's like I said earlier, in 2000 Bush wasn't even in my "top 5" during the GOP primaries - too far to the middle.
When it came to the general election, though, I did vote for him, because I surely did not want Al Gore.
President Bush is not all I'll like on immigration, and he does believe in using the Federal government more than I'd like - but John Kerry would be much worse. John Kerry is also pro-abortion, pro-Kyoto, would, I believe, hand back part of our foreign policy to the UN, and he's promised to raise taxes.
There's also the matter of judges - the Supreme Court is a potential issue. President Bush has appointed conservative judges to the federal bench; it's Congress that hasn't confirmed them. What would Kerry do?
I can't prove it, but I'm fairly well convinced that no one could win if they were running much right of President Bush. I don't think the country as a whole is that conservative right 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.