Posted on 06/18/2002 9:57:13 AM PDT by jimkress
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:54:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In terms of CFR, I think that was a case of taking the issue away, particularly due to Enron's collapse. Had Enron not collapsed, I think he would have vetoed it, but Enron's collapse, plus some bad mismanagement of the bill by Hastert ensured it would pass. The good news is that this thing will probably get shot down for the most part by SCOTUS.
Right now, the effort to make the tax cuts permanent is a big winner. We also have the war on terrorism, and in some cases, we also have the judicial nominations. The fact that the Green Party is running to their left - even against people like Wellstone - makes things easier. Bush has proven he can win (albeit it was too close for comfort, mostly due to the DUI smear that Rat in Maine engineered in the last week of the election) with less-than-stellar turnout from the Christian Right.
The Dems will hang themselves as they try to minimiz their losses to the Greens. Plus, we're going to get a lot more support for the Teamsters due to the ANWR fight. Family farmers in South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Georgia, and Missouri will go Republican as the Democratic votes against permanently repealing the death tax are mentioned in ads.
In fact, the GOP may have a simple slogan for the fall "No death tax." Does that sound familiar to you? ;)
Yep. That was my first election that I voted in, so I remember. As a matter of fact, I voted for Jim Rogan (remember him?) and he was elected, but pretty much all the other conservatives and Republicans on the ballot went down in flames. I still wonder to this day where the base that showed up in '94 went to. I'm here, where are those gutless wankers who cost us the Senate???
A closer look at the 1994 election shows that "the base" didn't really show up for that one--it wasn't won by Republicans so much as it was lost by the Democrats. The Democrat base didn't turn out at ALL.
I'm here, where are those gutless wankers who cost us the Senate???
They're gutlessly wanking away...
"No death tax." Does that sound familiar to you? ;)"
"No Car Tax" worked for the charismatically-challenged Gilmore, now, didn't it?! =^D
FReegards...MUD
Besides, the fights we picked on ANWR and stuff like the steel tariffs have lessened union support for the Dems and has sent them more to the GOP. That helps accomplish objectives 2 and 3. Plus, Bush is making inroads among Hispanics, and we are recruiting good conservative Hispanics in NM and CA (that Escobar guy in CA looks sharp). Peel off more of `em.
It's changing the rules on the Dems. We might lose some hard-core Buchanan types, but we'll more than make up for it with increased union and Hispanic support - plus a lot of the "undecided" voters who went Gore the last time due to the DUI smear. After the way Bush handled 9/11, and the competent job he is doing now, they're not going to go Dem this next time.
And don't forget the Dems who seem to be emptying the magazines into their feet. It's all about applying the lesson taught by the parable of the old bull and the young bull, and Bush seems to be doing that quite well in my estimation. If only a lot more folks in the base would do the same thing, I'd be almost certain of future landslides.
Poobah: "Four MILLION conservatives did not vote, or voted third-party, or voted for GORE on 11/7/2000.Lazamataz: "In attempting to authenticate this figure..."
I was curious too. I googled and googled and could only verify that the "4 million conservative voter" figure comes from a Karl Rove sound bite. Based on that, I give it a 50/50 chance of being correct. It could also be political horsehockey. But... here was an interesting quote from an FR post of a JWR article:
"Evangelical Christians represent 26 percent of voters. In 2000, 84 percent of them voted for Bush. Had he lost just a fraction of this vote, George W. would have been one of history's also-rans."But Here's another quote:"Karl Rove, political guru of the Bush White House, estimated that of the religious right's white evangelical base, only 15 million of the estimated 19 million turned out to vote for the Republican candidate in 2000. Much of the remainder appears to have dropped out of the process, a development Rove tells insiders he hopes is only temporary."And another:"What happened to the power of the Christian right? For starters, says presidential counselor and political strategist Karl Rove, they are losing their most important lever: the ability to bring Republican voters to the polls. It is a self-induced electoral rapture that threatens Republican hopes for the future."But Christian Conservatives aren't the only fundamentalists who have Bush's ear:"If you look at the model of the electorate, Rove told pundits and policy wonks assembled at a December 2001 American Enterprise Institute gathering, and you look at the model of who voted [in the 2000 presidential election], the big discrepancy is among self-identified, white, evangelical Protestants, Pentecostals and fundamentalists. There should have been 19 million of them, and instead there were 15 million of them. The fact that 4 million stayed home has Rove worried: I think we may be seeing some return to the sidelines of some of the previously politically involved religious conservatives."
"That's bad news for George W. Bush and the party he leads, particularly as they fight to keep control of the House and regain a majority in the Senate. Between 70 and 80 percent of the 15 million voters in the 2000 presidential contest who fit the Rove demographic -- white, evangelical Protestants, Pentecostals and fundamentalists -- voted for Bush over Gore."
If the election of 2000 taught us anything, it taught us that the country is divided straight down the middle. Sure, the GOP may have lost the confidence of the aforementioned groups. But one group did vote for the GOP. They voted in numbers. They voted en masse. They are over 7 million strong. The majority of them, over 87% voted for then Governor of Texas George W. Bush. Many of them, about 35%, voted for the first time in the 2000 election. Almost all of them, 87-95% voted for Bush based on what their leadership recommended. Over 70,000 in Florida alone voted for Bush.It would appear that the Bush Whithouse is trying to please everybody. I think history shows us that that is a dead end ploy that ends up pleasing nobody.If this group had chosen not to vote for the GOP candidate, he would not be in the White House.
This group is the American Muslim community. The community is about 7-10 million strong and has agreed to vote as a bloc. The Muslim community elected Bush. Make no mistake about it. No other group or community can make this claim. The only reason that Gore is not president, is because Muslims overwhelmingly supported Bush.
To the Bush White House, this is not news. They all know it. They are catering to Muslim needs and meeting with them weekly. Did you get that? Meeting with Muslim groups on a weekly basis.
It's called voting with your feet. Ask George HW Bush
what happens when the base does that.
It was cold that day, and very wet.
Was it worth it for you to stand out there, in the pouring rain, for this guy?
We don't want Hillary so we will adopt all of her ideas but we will have a (R) behind the elected civil servant. And we all know that Congress doesn't care one iota about us. Their whole battle is having more (R)s or (D)s in so they get the nicer office space. You see in this "Two-Party Cartel" they know you are such stoops that you will vote for the lesser of these two evils & they are re-elected at a 96% rate - more than the old Soviet Union. Yeh, you voters really scare them. Have a nice day & keep those contributions coming so we can con you some more.
Poohbah, I am absolutely willing to take any additional input you have to support this figure better than it appears to be supportable now. Since, sir, you have repeatedly cited this figure over the last few days -- and said the conservative movement can be safely ignored by Bush due to the 4 million conservatives who sat home on 2000 -- I will probably ask you to back this up with something a little more concrete than an estimate from Rove on a group only loosely related to the conservative group in question.
I would disagree with that.
In fact, I would argue that there is no real power in supporting 'elected officials' at all, when it gets down to it. I would argue that the only one who gets 'power' from an election is the official being elected. His base gets no power at all.
It is the 'monied interests' who have the power.
So backing any single elected official is pointless. When that person gets elected, he/she will abandon you and do what the big money wants 99.9% of the time.
So I believe the real path to power is to take control/make allies with as many of the 'special interests' as possible. Believing in any politician or political 'party' is a 'team' thing only good for rah rah fun. "We won you lost" kind of stuff.
And how exactly do you plan to do this? Have you ever tried to change an organization? This one is fully entrenched with people (some very wealthy and influential) who have been there for a long long time. I've read comments like this before - but would like to know the action plan.
I heard he's going to give compensation to the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Poor things!
If you forgive Bush his domestic policy follies because of his WOT, you are very misguided.
Bush has totally pussed out of the WOT.
The Twin Towers, Pentagon, and Pennsylvania martyrs have in no way been avenged.
The very seat of our government was attacked by Saudi Arabia and Bush responds by having Moose Limbs over to pray at the White House (the one they missed on September 11), then entertains the Saudi Prince f@gs at the Double Wide Ranch. Sickening. Un-American.
Bush is a wimply, unprincipled, dull-witted, cowardly, pinko, POS, POTUS.
Total embarrassment.
You should hear the guys in my group, all of whom voted for him in 2000.
Believe me, he is a one-term president.
It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work -- work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.
First Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life
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.