Posted on 05/05/2005 9:13:01 AM PDT by metalmanx2j
Does this make Kerry a strong candidate?
They effectively got out the Christian Right vote. Christian talk radio is usually very aggressive against anyone who isn't stridently pro-life, pro traditional sexuality. The Presidnet has been modestly pro life and modestly pro tradional sexuality. While he defends pro life, he mostly marginalizes that effort with words to the effect of "the country isn't ready for a total abortion ban" and suggested that states recognize domestic partnerships but was against outright gay marriage. To most of the Christian Right, those moderate positions would doom most candidates. He even supported CFT which is a Christian Right third rail. But still in the election, they spoke of him as "one of us" in thought and deed and in other glowing terms. Getting out that segment of the vote took tremendous co-ordiantion and effort between leaders of the Christian Right and Team Bush.
Christian Right talk radio is beginning to sabre rattle a little more, but they are still cautious in their outright being upset with the President. However, if these were actions by Clinton, Gore or Kerry, Christian Right talk radio would be on them like flies on stink. They are still a tad shy about breaking rank or being critcial, but again the sabres are starting to rattle.
"If conservatives stay home for the 2006 elections, power can shift to the Democrats"
Wishful thinking againg .. [..sigh..]
And the closeness of the election tightened. It would be like me running for office and getting 50 votes but my opponent only got 5 votes 4 years ago. This year I got 100 votes, but my oppenent got 99 votes and then claiming I was a strong candidate. Frankly, I came closer to being turned out with 100 votes than I did with only 50 votes.
Reagan won in a landslide. Bush won with with a bare plurality.
Right? While there are some fine '04 FReepers, I have had some of the rudest (and unprovoked) comments made to me by Class of 2004 FReepers. The arrogance of some of these people is mind-boggling.
As for this article...much ado about nothing. Just a bunch of Bush-bashing hand-wringing.
"Let's show them by allowing DEMOCRATS to regain power once again."
Thanks to Faltering Frist the Frivolous and willing accomplices, the RINOs, the RATs ARE contolling the Senate.
Agreed. Too many states are now in Republican governors hands which allow for the congressional districts to be carved out to their benefit. Senators are in a different boat, but since they aren't all up for election at the same time, it is more difficult to get a big swing. the seneate is more incremental.
Um...yes, Kerry was a strong candidate. That's the great thing about elections--at the end you can count up and see how things went, both against your opponent and the historical record. If in 2000 Gore had done as well as Kerry we wouldn't have President Bush to kick around. You want a weak Presidential candidate think Walter Mondale or George McGovern or Barry Goldwater.
Remember the Maine.
That is it.
Oh, it's true that the country was narrowly divided. If the Democrats had only nominated a candidate who promised to raise taxes (like Mondale did in 1984), Bush would have probably gotten a higher percentage. Frankly, given the Clinton recession, the economic hit from 9/11, leadership shown in taking out Saddam which alienated some natural political allies, the rabid opposition by the international elites, the MSM, as well as an energized Democratic left (and a few carping conservatives), the President's increase in both absolute and percentage terms over the 2000 result was impressive.
OK...the two candidates who got the most votes in history and on a percentage basis of voters higher than in many decades, were weak. You are confusing your attitudes with reality. Maybe you can suggest who would have been stronger candidates than Bush or Kerry. By which I mean, someone who whould have received either more votes or a significantly higher percentage.
As I said earlier, what ifs and hypotheticals are useless.
But maybe you can tell me what the #1 source of support for John Kerry was if it was not the lefts hate filled ABB.
Seriously, outside of "not being Bush", what about John Kerry garnered him the support he got?
When you get more than 59 million votes, there is probably a whole spectrum of reasons why. There was a very vocal far left in the campaign that argued ABB. They spoke mostly to themselves and to FReepers slumming at DU. I know from going door to door in my community that it was much more complicated than that. Sure, very few people actually "knew" John Kerry, or George Bush, for that matter. Nevertheless, these individuals embodied the hopes and wishes of large constituencies. The campaigns they headed turned out huge numbers of voters on both an absolute and historic percentage basis. This is the very definition of a strong candidate.
Frankly, it would have been a lot higher is the President didn't single handedly blow life back into Kerry during the 1st debate. The Swifty's had dealt Kerry a death blow. Bush played Jesus to Kerry's Lazarus and brought him back to life.
Please, I never said the election was a blow out. I never said he had a mandate. I said Bush and Kerry were strong candidates as judged by the only metric that matters, votes. In hindsight, could they been stronger. Sure. But we don't get to run elections over because we've perfected our debating points.
On the democratic side, what about Zell or for that matter what about Nunn? John Breux?
REVIEW:
Democrats are whineing about deficit spending and too much government control -AND- Republicans are increasing the government footprint in our lives and increasing the government BUDGET...
Did I just walk into the WRONG MOVIE.. or what.?.
Carl Rove is evidently NOT a genius.. unless hes an EVIL genius..
Did Micheal Moore produce this movie or WHAT.?.
Did I take my meds, No I don't need Meds, maybe I do.?..
WHATs GOING ON HERE.?...
( Jack Booted usher removes me from the movie ranting uncontrollably)
I dont' know, but based on Freeper support, maybe Tom Delay should have run in the primary?
Good point -- so why should we refrain from criticizing those Bush policies that are liberal and could have been offered by Ted Kennedy or John Kerry?
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.