Posted on 09/21/2005 1:55:53 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
No, you are confused. That was a movie called Basic Instinct starring a blonde actress whose name was not Sandra Day O'Connor.
Perhaps they didn't change party registration because they voted for Clinton in 1992, 1996, and Gore in 2000.
The full time Bush Staffer assigned to run the rally was really angry with me for not turning down a single Democrat that asked for tickets. Our questions had determined that most of those Democrats had not voted for Bush, Dole or Bush 41. Later analysis comparing votes in individual precincts from 1980 through 2004 confirmed these people were registered Democrats that had voted nearly straight Democratic tickets for over 20 years.
When it was revealed that I had not turned down any Democrat applicants for tickets, the Bush staffer was afraid that at least some of them were ringers. He was very afraid they would stand up, scream. shout, and demonstrate during the rally.If they did he was sure the media would lead with that story on all the major newscasts for at least a 24 hour cycle. All the major and minor media were at the rally. They would get very damaging video to air. The staffer was certain with that with so many Democrats in attendance, there would be some who would group together to scream, shout, and denigrate the president in order to attract media attention to their opposition;
The staffer was concerned enough to warn President Bush that he might be heckled by at least some of the Democrats. The first thing Dubya did when he walked to the microphone was say he had been told there were lots of Democrats in attendance. He welcomed them and thanked them for coming. That way if they were nasty they might look bad in at least some people's eyes.
The response was applause, cheers and chants of Four More Years. At that point I looked at the Bush staffer who was also on the stage. He was looking at me and giving me a thumbs up.
One of the reasons we think Kerry refused to concede before late morning on the day after the election, is his Campaign firmly believed that they had at least 250 thousand more Democratic votes in Ohio than they actually got. At 10 pm on election night the Kerry campaign was telling Susan Estridge on Fox that they had at least 250 thousand uncounted Democratic votes in Ohio and Kerry should win both Ohio and the presidency.
Since the election the Democrats undoubtedly have done what the Republicans have done. They studied returns at the precinct level to determine what really took place. They must have checked the numbers from these precincts from 1980 up to and including the 2004 election. It does not take a rocket scientist looking at those precinct returns to determine that Rove was right to go after traditional Democrats. The numbers prove more than the winning margin came from Democrats who voted for a Republican President for the first time. The actual returns prove it. The only question is why?
The reasons for jumping tradition to vote for President Bush were what the Democrats are calling family values.. and are claiming to have lots of. Even Howard Dean has it figured out. That leads me to believe that the Democrats did just as good a study of what happened as the Republicans did. What they didn't do to Roberts tends to support my believe as to why the Democrats are not playing hard ball.
You note the transition of conservatives from the Democratic Party to the Republican. There may be a sort of transition taking place in Ohio. That is what the Democrats really fear. They know a transition took place 35 years ago in the South as Southern Democratic Conservatives moved first to sometimes voting for Republicans for president. Over time soutern Conservatives began casting straight Republican votes.
But that type of transition is at best in the early stages in Ohio and is just starting in Michigan. It may be moving north but slowly or it may be a different type of transition altogether. North of the Mason Dixon Line the transition appears to be based on moral values... not what we typically call a philosophy of government
The South is no longer in play. Ohio is... Both parties know something called moral values is at play. That explains the Democrats decision to not BORK Roberts.
One other point that needs to be made. The Democrats that voted for Bush in Ohio are not conservative by any typical definition. What they do believe is that what God did to Saddam And Gomorrah was the right thing to do.. They fear our degraded moral values may condem our nation to severe punishment.
Their religious beliefs trump their desire for social programs and a communal state that provides for all.
It gave President Bush Ohio and I think both parties know it. I am not sure anyone in the media understands. As usual the Media gurus are the last to know.
We know on what issues President Bush campaigned. He mentioned the Supreme Court in every speech. I think the odds on Dubya failing to do what he said he would do are slim and none.
One of the reasons the media hates President Bush is he always does what he promises to do.
Norman Lear firmly believed that the viewers would not like Archie Bunker and would have great sympathy for Meathead.
The public reaction was that Meathead was a worthless moocher.. An ungreatful a-hole living off his father-in-law. Lear was flabergasted when much of the public came down on Archie's side.
A very, very interesting observation. This statistic should be published widely. It will make political correctniks and social radicals rethink their positions on many things, not just supreme court nominees.
It's good for Americans to know who their neighbors are.
Count on osama obama voting NO
He took a tremendous amount of heat even before the hearings began.
One of the best candidates who has suffered the most for daring to be himself and stick to his own principles.
My heart broke for him when the attacks were so untrue, ugly, and relentless.
I just love how so many take the liberal opinion about Gonzales and cannot point with any detail as to why they hate the thought of his nomination to the Court.
Arlen did very well during the Weldon/enAble/Danger hearings.
He has to publicly posture to keep his 'friends' on the left happy.
He has been outstanding to this point.
Thank you for that fascinating analysis. I would strongly urge you to expand that and post it on FR or somewhere else it can be read. Call it "How Bush Won." You have access to data that people outside of the party process don't have.
As a conservative, I for one want to know what is happening to our political system and which way it's going.
These voters went for Nixon in 1972;
Carter in 1976 (who ran as a moderate Democrat); Reagan/Bush in 1980, '84,'88;
Bill Clinton and Perot in 1992/1996 (Clinton ran as a conservative Democrat, especially in 1996; I am told he ran ads on Christian radio in the north promising to sign a ban on Partial Birth Abortion if he was given a clean bill.)
How this "Silent Majority" played out in 2000 and 2004 I can only speciulate accoridng to Donor's theory.
Feinstein, Kennedy to vote against Roberts nomination
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/22/state/n084756D92.DTL
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, September 22, 2005
(09-22) 08:47 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Judiciary Committee Democrats divided on Thursday over endorsing John Roberts to be the Supreme Court's next chief justice as his nomination made its way to the full Senate for confirmation.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee's only woman, announced Thursday she would oppose Roberts, while Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., decided to support making the conservative judge the nation's 17th chief justice.
Feinstein told a packed Judiciary Committee hearing room that her vote was decided after Roberts refused to fully answer questions from her and other Democrats in his confirmation hearing last week.
"I knew as little about what Judge Roberts really thought about issues after the hearings as I did before the hearing. This makes it very hard for me," said Feinstein, an abortion rights supporter.
"I cannot in good conscious cast a 'yea' vote," she said. "I will cast a 'no' vote."
The committee was to make an official decision later in the afternoon, sending the nomination to the full Senate. A vote in Roberts' favor was assured, with the panel's majority of 10 Republicans united behind him.
--snip-
(EXCERPT)
I so agree with you about Justice Thomas and vile, unfair things they said about him during the confirmation hearings. The point is that the media will crucify ("lynch") ANY candidate appointed by a Republican president, no matter how qualified, and will give a pass to a much dimmer bulb appointed by a Democrat. I mean, really, Ginsburg and Breyer are not exactly heating up the intellectual debate in any way, are they?
He appears with Scalia and isn't even embarrassed at his own ignorance.
Outstanding analysis, and I think spot-on.
What a lot of conservatives (primarily but not entirely Republicans) fail to recognize is that there is a significant amount of moral conservatism within the Democratic party. Not in the national leadership, but in the rank and file. Conservatives tend to confuse some of the howlers within the national leadership of the Democratic party with the rank and file that meets at your local library.
The thing to remember is that much of the rank and file of the Democratic party is religious. They're Christians. Black and hispanic Christians to be more specific. And for the life of me I've never understood why conservatives have never realized that and spent their efforts reaching out not so much across the political aisle, but across the religious pew.
Conservatives could and should be running this country. But we aren't and probably won't be any time soon.
"Perhaps they didn't change party registration because they voted for Clinton in 1992, 1996, and Gore in 2000."
Part of it, but I think a bigger issue is the commonly held belief amongst black Democrats that the GOP is a sort of kinder, gentler venue for racists. Also, the commonly held perception amongst working class and poor Democrats that the GOP is the party of buccaneer capitalists.
Unfortunately things like hurricane Katrina, which the media and race-baiters exploited to their best benefit, sure don't help commonly held perceptions.
Perhaps conservatives should start looking at politics from the perspective of what our principles are and what will it take to get those ideas implemented, not simply whether the jersey being worn by a politician has a "D" or "R" on it.
Gonzales is more conservative than was O'Connor.
This current court has Scalia, Thomas, sometimes Kennedy, and the unknown Roberts.
Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, O'Connor, and Stevens are pretty consistently liberal.
Gonzalez, more conservative than O'Connor, would turn the corner on some issues that come before the court. He would also be easily confirmed by the Senate.....the dems thinking they'd injure the President.
No matter who gets the nod from Potus this time, the NEXT vacancy, Bush's 3rd, will be the one that tips the court.
Stevens at 85 years old is a real possibility for a vacancy. Have I heard that Ginsburg's health is bad? Once O'Connor is gone, Ginsburg is the 2nd oldest justice at 72 years old.
Specter is trapped between Frist and his own constituents. He does not want to have to support an openly conservative anti-ROE candidate and knows if he does not his chairmanship of the committee is toast. Failure would be his swansong either way. He has an ego as big as a barn in direct inverse proportionto his integrity.
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.