Posted on 06/09/2003 7:46:24 AM PDT by eBelasco
Edited on 06/09/2003 7:53:22 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
AMAGANSETT, N.Y. ? Every president for nearly a century has had political operatives in the White House to advise him on how his decisions would play with the public and tell him what the ramifications of policy would be on his reelection prospects. But few Americans are cynical enough to believe that this political gamesmanship is anything other than a means to an end, the end being to effectuate policy. Teddy Roosevelt had trusts to bust and Manifest Destiny to fulfill; FDR a Depression to tame; Richard Nixon a détente to achieve; Ronald Reagan a government to shrink and a Cold War to win; Bill Clinton social programs to save from the conservative hatchet.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
LA Times articles need to be excerpted.
”Guns Before Butter.”
Why, this is much better than "The Republicans stole all the good ideas and left us with poorly thought out positions and unpopular opinions."
Yes, Karl Rove is the hand that pulls the strings of Puppet W. And Clinton in no way was a slave to the endless public opinion surveys that Dick Morris was constantly providing him. The Arkansas Love Machine was far to busy with "social programs to save from the conservative hatchet."
What a lovely, unbiased, newsy piece from the LA Times. No wonder people place more faith in newspaper's ability to present facts clearly, evenly, and fairly than ever before...
”Guns Before Butter.”
This idiot can't say what is the truth: This administration is trying to do what is RIGHT for the nation, which sadly enough cripples the Democrats. That truth should be reason enough to vote Republican.
The media can put Hillary's picture on billboards from Maine to San Diego but that doesn't mean people will vote for her. William Rusher, an old-timer whose views I respect greatly, said two or three years ago in a column that there has been no potential presidential candidate in the history of this republic any more destined to be utterly and completely destroyed in a national race than Hillary Rodham Clinton, and I totally agree. A lot of folks here have always been quaking in their boots about the prospect of her running, but I've always said "bring her on" and let's get this show on the road because I do not believe there's any chance in this or any known solar system that she will be elected president of the U.S., no matter what the media does or whether she writes a book a week.
Quite frankly, I think nominating Hillary Clinton could end up being the final nail in the casket of the Democratic Party.
GO BUSH!
I can't follow Gabler's arguments.
Trial lawyers, federal workers, public-school teachers, medicare and social security recipients are all beneficiaries of institutions with serious problems. Reform is required. How can Gabler be so sure that the motivation for reform is political rather than philosophical or patriotic?
That being said you should be very afraid if Gabler is correct in his assessment of Rove's motivation. A one-party system is a tyranny - or is that ok with you so long as you get to be the tyrant?
So far so good.
But it takes money to be effective politically. How do those without money or power represent their interests legally if the wealthy and powerfull do everything they can to remove their sources of funding?
A wise man once said, "Beware of advice from the powerful, for they do not seek company."
Typical liberal bull from a liberal Bull Sh(tter. A single party system could only exist as long as the almost every voter agrees with the positions taken by that single party. If neither party shares their believes they will form a new party.
Once in our history a single party disintegrated. The Whigs went from a major party to a non existent party in just 4 short years. The Whigs held the presidency from 1848 until 1852. Their candidate got 43 percent of the vote in 1852. Yet the party had totally disappeared as even a minor factor in presidential politics just 4 years later. They did not have a candidate for president on the ballot in 1856. It would be as if clinton went out of office in 2000, and the Democrats did not have a candidate on the presidential ballot in 2004. That is what happened to the Whigs. The democrats did not become dominate. The Whigs were replaced by the Republican party in 1856 and elected a Republican president in 1860.
If the Democrats would get destroyed as were the Whigs, they would be replaced by another party before the next election.
People that write the kind of crap you espouse, depend on other Freepers being as ignorant as you are. That will never happen... Try getting a clue.
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.