Posted on 11/04/2004 9:16:19 AM PST by mrustow
White, Christian voters came out for George W. Bush. They will not come out in '08, if the party's standard bearer is Rudy Gay Rights Giuliani or Arnold Constitutional Amendment Schwarzenegger, both of whom are pro-abortion and liberal on virtually every social issue. But they will come out for a Rick Santorum.
I wouldn't assume that the party leadership will learn from '04. The GOP uses Christians, the way the Dems use blacks. It does not respect them.
Thanks for the great graphics, especially the middle one!
Amazing, first time I heard of two items mentioned in this article: that Bush only needed 269 EC to win, because a tie (269 each) would throw the election into the Pubbie-controlled House; and that CBS news believes its core viewers are left-wing Democratic Bush haters. Most amazing.
In a democracy, people have short memories. And today, "progressive" pedagogues and journalists have ensured that children grow up with even shorter memories. So, while I wish you were right about that permanent "Mark of Cain," I fear you are not.
The NO is a resounding denunciation of Socialism.
Socialism is inimical to not only those of faith, but also to those who believe in this Constitution, free enterprise and personal responsibility.
If I wanted limitations on my ability to succeed and pursue goals, I would move to France.
I dunno. I found Bush vs. Kerry a case of creeping vs. galloping socialism.
I am rooting for Santorum, too.
Bookmark for later.
When I was in grad school, my philosophy profs were cut from the same cloth. The most prejudiced people I ever met. The were inured to both arguments and experience.
And where did you get your math degree, Dan? Clearly there wasn't a math requirement for that journalism degree from Sam Houston State College. Ed taught math, Dan.
What a putz. A fourth-grader could solve this kind of story problem:
If Candidate A is ahead of Candidate B by 170,000 votes and there are 169,000 votes remaining to be counted, which Candidate will win the election?" *sheesh*
Sam Houston State? Is there where he went? A fine school, I'm sure, so I won't hold Rather against it.
How I love that dialogue. "But I used to teach math ..."
I kept going over to SeeBS becuase I was getting a huge kick out of their bias. Watching Blather was like watching the tape of something that happened three hours ago. It was hilarious. I hope somebody does a documentary about the MSM's behavior on this election night.
I wish he had mentioned that those knuckleheads at CBS refused all night to even show the vote tally in Ohio!
And yet, Katie Couric refused to recognize his victory. And Democrats like to call other people angry and mean-spirited?!
Seems to me that what's mean-spirited is to tell a bald-faced lie about what someone else said. Katie Couric said that Bush had won a majority. That's not refusing to recognize his victory, that's confirming it. What she denied was that his victory was overwhelming, or whatever constitutes a mandate.
I can remember Presidents like Johnson, who won with about 60% or more of the popular vote (my memory is not exact), and Nixon, who won every state except Massachusetts. Those guys got mandates. President Bush got a 3% victory, and has majorities of 5% in one house and about 3% in the other. Those are majorities, but they're not what I'd call a mandate.
Surely it works well as a DNC talking point, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
There is no such thing as an electoral victory without a mandate. When Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960 by one percent, and only thanks to the graveyard vote in Cook County, Illinois and Duval County, Texas, no one said that he "lacked a mandate" to govern. Likewise, when Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in a sqeaker in '76. This "victory without a mandate" nonsense was invented by the Dems in 2000, to try and turn their defeat into victory.
And yet, Katie Couric refused to recognize his victory. And Democrats like to call other people angry and mean-spirited?!
Seems to me that what's mean-spirited is to tell a bald-faced lie about what someone else said. Katie Couric said that Bush had won a majority. That's not refusing to recognize his victory, that's confirming it. What she denied was that his victory was overwhelming, or whatever constitutes a mandate.
I can remember Presidents like Johnson, who won with about 60% or more of the popular vote (my memory is not exact), and Nixon, who won every state except Massachusetts. Those guys got mandates. President Bush got a 3% victory, and has majorities of 5% in one house and about 3% in the other. Those are majorities, but they're not what I'd call a mandate.
Surely it works well as a DNC talking point, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
There is no such thing as an electoral victory without a mandate. When Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960 by one percent, and only thanks to the graveyard vote in Cook County, Illinois and Duval County, Texas, no one said that he "lacked a mandate" to govern. Likewise, when Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in a sqeaker in '76. This "victory without a mandate" nonsense was invented by the Dems in 2000, to try and turn their defeat into victory.
Well, to hell with this "mandate" crap. George Bush won the election, clearly and decisively. Republicans have significant majorities in both the House and Senate. They have a job to do. It is clear that the majority of voters in the country want them to get on with it. The 'Rats can either get on board and help in a constructive way, move off to the side and sulk, or stand in the road and to be run over and left as a grease spot. It's their choice.
I had no idea it was that old. And here I was, saying that they cooked it up in 2000. I stand corrected.
Nixon's and Reagan's landslide victories were lonely personal triumphs. The Democrats still kept an iron grip on Congress. In contrast, Bush's win is a real mandate since Republicans won in Congress on his coattails. He actually increased his party's strength in Congress! I'll take that accomplishment over Nixon's and Reagan's any day for its not merely a personal affirmation, its a victory of ideology and party.
But the point is, it really doesn't matter. As GWB said in his speech, he has some "capital" to work with. Unlike capital that us working stiffs accrue slowly over time, political capital is short-lived and can't be passed on to an inheritor. It has to be spent, preferably wisely, on important, and, winnable, issues. So let's take a little time to rest after an exhausting election season, celebrate appropriately, and then get on with it. Bush and the Republicans, unlike 'Rats, know that now they have an obligation to perform and at least make an honest effort to deliver on the things they campaigned and were elected on.
Bumpbackatcha!
Another home run from Nickey Styx
It probably has been 5 years since I watched ABC, NBC or CBS, but, like you, I was interested to see how they were handling this ass-kicking.
The thing that astounded me was how, though the same faces were there (Brokaw, Rather, Jennings), they all looked and sounded like dodering old dinosaurs.
I was astounded with how ancient and feeble they all looked and sounded.
Well, they are ancient! Rather is 72, Brokaw is 64 or 65, and Jennings, I believe, is 66.
Yep,
The next election will be even more important than this one.
It will totally break what is left of MSM and Hollywood.
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.