Posted on 06/13/2003 1:55:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Yes, Ross Perot did lose the election for himself when he quit for awhile and then came back.
I would have voted for Ross if he hadn't have quit.He said his daughter's wedding was going to be disrupted or something.
Then he came back.
I didn't trust him him anymore.
So I voted for Bush.
What I won't do is tell the RNC that they own my vote.
I don't think I'm doing that by posting my agreement with JimRob on FR. I also post a lot of hard edged criticism of GW Bush and other Republicans when I think they deserve it. I could practically see the forehead veins throbbing when I posted that "Bush is outta here if he votes for the AWB".
I get my point across to the RNC by letters and phone calls and returning their donation cards with terse notes about CFR and the like with no money in the envelope. I also use conservative polling/petitioning and orgs like the NRA to amplify my voice.
They by no means have a lock on my vote but by your own admission the default position is hard to avoid. But but but President McCain??? McCain or Hitlery. McCain or Lieberman. McCain or Kerry. McCain or Dean. Aiyeeeeee!!!!! Choices like that are the stuff of Monty Python skits. Or Torquemada.
Is there still room in Belize for me?
We have to crush the left and we have to do it soon.
I think the Perot voters knew exactly what they were doing...sending a message to the Republican Party (sound familiar?). By not looking past their noses, we got exactly what they deserved, eight years of the Clintons.True as far as it goes, but not an accurate description of what is happening with the growth of government spending under President Bush. Going from, say, a 4% growth rate to 3% growth can described as an incremental step toward smaller government. Under Bush, the growth rate has increased, with more budget busters planned, like prescription drug benefits. Those are concrete steps toward larger, not smaller government.
I agree that at times the bushies give W a pass for failed strategeries, but, I also see others NOT giving W credit for his successes in an equal portion. Neither is conducive to correcting mistakes or reinforcing effective rationale.How did Clinton, with a 43% plurality, win an eight year term?
It was the advisors of Bush41 who didn't look past their noses when they lost a third of his 1988 voters, and they cost us four years of Clinton. It was the advisors of Bob Dole who didn't look past their noses and get enough of those votes back that cost us the second four years of Clinton.
Campaign managers are paid to win elections. Candidates are supposed to hire good managers. The accountability, and blame, falls squarely on the losing candidates for whom you and I voted in '92 and '96.
If they move toward you instead of the middle, they have no chance of winning an election.Agreed. Being a kneejerk in either direction is no constructive. Bush 43 and Rove deserve credit for the 2000 win, regardless of how lost they are in California.
Not unless he picks up more new ones than he loses. Politicians are always looking to solidify their base while picking up swing voters from the other guy. If they lose a few from the fringe, they don't care.In which direction did the GOP move in the losses of '92 and '96? When losing seats in the House and Senate in '98? They did so again in 2000, but lets call that a wash, with the GOP taking the near tie for the Presidency. The main factor in 2002 was that Bush was riding high on his outstanding performance following 9/11, and was able to do well with strong mid-term coattails.
The last time the GOP made a concerted effort to appeal to conservative principles was in 1994. Refresh my memory... how many GOP incumbents were thrown out of the House or Senate?
I have a question. What exactly is the definition of a politician "taking my vote for granted" (tmvg)? Does that mean of they don't vote or govern exactly as I would if I were in their place, they are TMVG? Where's the line? 50%? 75%?This was in response to my comment "If a politician pursues strategies that lose voters from one election to the next, then that politician has only the mirror to blame."
Obviously, if an incumbent picks up more voters than he loses, he isn't going to lose the election. That's irrelevant.
My comment was specifically about politicians who lose their seats by losing parts of their base when trying to appeal to new voters. Getting new voters is dandy, but when a political strategy loses more votes than it gains, the strategists are to blame, not the voters.
BTW, my definition of "base" is anyone who voted for a politician or party in the previous election. President Bush counts among his base both RINOs and conservatives. Fair enough?
For me it's hard to quantify. I know it when I see it. Insulting my intelligence with a candidate is one way. Riordan is barely more loyal to the GOP than Buchanan or Bob Smith. He endorses Democrats over Republicans. Why should conservatives be expected to show more party loyalty than a candidate?
Here's another... the "do you want Hillary?" ploy. That cuts both ways, yet too often the bad strategists responsible for the losses to the Clintons in the first place keep getting paid for consultations.
How many statewide races has the GOP lost in California since 1998? Damned near all of them, and all of the high profile races have been run by limp candidates who were ashamed of conservatism and tried to appeal to the center. Losers all, because they pursued strategy that is an axiomatic loser.
Attempting to buck History, Bush and Rove sought to repeat the error by annointing Riordan. Since defeating McCain in the 2000 primary, Bush's only California electoral success is that he got his petty political score settled with Bill Jones.
Meanwhile, the elephant in the room in California, the one the Bush has refused to understand since 1994, remains unaddressed.
Dang, Fred!
Yer killin' me!
emphasis added
;^)
Good point, however if your ticket is punched "American" you're entitled to whatever freedoms are on the menu. Try as you might to qualify the recipient, all that was then, is available to all Americans now. Should you wish to continue to dance around principles, may I suggest more feathers?
Nutso is right.
This may have worked in the 50s or even early 60s. Things have changed radically, and so have people willing to sell out for personal gain or votes etc. Politician just don't seem to have the same allegiance for their constituents, too many back door deals, flip flops, to much chance for fraud and deceit.
I personally have taken much flack due to some of my comments about the two parties in DC. I am not a follower, and I do not blindly vote for anyone, or any party due to party affiliation. I am glad to see that many others seem to be on the same track.
Tell me how to win elections without the "middle of the roaders".
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.