Do You Think Bush's Recent Stand Against the Religious Right...

[lavender]

 

[Pyper]

He did? When? Where?

I've stopped watching American news because it's idiotic.

 

[Pyper]

Er, um, nevermind. Just opened Azwed's thread.

 

[Ham Murabi]

...has anything to do with the fact that the Democrats have nominated Pelosi and seem to have decided on a strategy of focusing more to the left rather than being the "me too" party? This allows Bush and the Republicans to take a more centrist view and capture many voters.

If the Democrats had definitively chosen to steer the middle with another choice, do you think Bush would have made such bold statements against the Christian coalition recently, regarding anti-Islamic statements and abortion?

Actually, mainstream Republicans are probably pleased as punch that Pelosi, or someone of her ilk, could replace the socialist from Missouri. She might even be more left, and if there is a lesson from the elections earlier this month, it's that the Republicans are already "centrist" with the majority of Americans.

 

[lavender]

Re: Re: Do You Think Bush's Recent Stand Against the Religious Right...

 

[Ham Murabi]

Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Bush's Recent Stand Against the Religious Right...

I think you read way too much into the past elections, considering the social and international climate of our country. But, I do hope that Republicans continue to feed on this victory and fail to see if it weren't for 9/11 and the paranoia that it has caused, that they would have lost quite a few seats in this election.

If you don't think 9/11 has bolstered Bush's popularity by a gazillion, and if you fail to see that Bush's popularity post 9/11 is the critical reason that Republicans won key victories, then people who believe like you are going to be in for a rude awakening in 2006 and beyond. (I think Bush will win in 2004, thus my 2006 statement).

If 9/11 bolstered Bush's popularity, maybe it's because the party that got its hat handed to it on election day was lukewarm to the war on terrorism.

 

[phrodeau]

9/11 may be the primary reason, but the Dems definitely lost voters through a lack of focus and the unfortunate Wellstone memorial event.

 

[lavender]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Bush's Recent Stand Against the Religious Right...

 

[lavender]

 

[Pyper]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Bush's Recent Stand Against the Religious Right...

Whatever party had been in power on 9/11 would have had it's popularity bolstered. Even Democrats were and have been hesitant to criticize too much regarding Presidential action because of the desire to have some national cohesiveness on the issue.

We're not talking quantum physics here, it's quite simple.

Also, in a time of trouble, the conservative party always gets more support because they call for law and order, and promise a firm stance against those causing the trouble.

 

[lavender]

 

[Ham Murabi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Bush's Recent Stand Against the Religious Right...

Whatever party had been in power on 9/11 would have had it's popularity bolstered. Even Democrats were and have been hesitant to criticize too much regarding Presidential action because of the desire to have some national cohesiveness on the issue.

We're not talking quantum physics here, it's quite simple.

I'll take it you're being quite serious about "whatever party would have been in power on 9/11." President Al Gore responding to 9/11 is a thought too terrifying to contemplate. He probably would have launched a missile at some Middle Eastern country — an aspirin factory, perhaps — and said "we're even."

 

[lavender]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Bush's Recent Stand Against the Religious Right...

 

[RisiaSkye]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Bush's Recent Stand Against the Religious Right...

Also, in a time of trouble, the conservative party always gets more support because they call for law and order, and promise a firm stance against those causing the trouble.

Welcome back to the Eisenhower years, baby.

Now that's depressing.

 

[lavender]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Bush's Recent Stand Against the Religious Right...

 

[TWB]

A new mantra:

The Party of the Firm Hand

I am still waiting for the party of the firm hand job. Where do I send my check?

 

[lavender]

 

[RisiaSkye]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Bush's Recent Stand Against the Religious Right...

We don't have to go back that far in history, Risia. The Republicans just love wars. Go back to Reagan and the War on Drugs. Another fine example of the firm hand.

Yes, but I'm more afraid of the Eisenhower Era. I've seen its products my whole life, while on the other hand, I am a product of Reagan's eternity in the White House.

I don't know the Eisenhower administration, but I knew Reagan's. The monster you *don't* know is scarier than the one you *do* know, isn't it?

Besides, Eisenhower never made a movie with a chimp, did he?

 

[lavender]

 

[Weevil]

...has anything to do with the fact that the Democrats have nominated Pelosi and seem to have decided on a strategy of focusing more to the left rather than being the "me too" party? This allows Bush and the Republicans to take a more centrist view and capture many voters.

If the Democrats had definitively chosen to steer the middle with another choice, do you think Bush would have made such bold statements against the Christian coalition recently, regarding anti-Islamic statements and abortion?

The only difference between the Democrats nominating Pelosi and them Digging up Jack Kennedy is the smell in congress.

It's a boat with leaks, no oars and no captain going up against a massive cruise ship that offers rock climbing, shooting and King Crab dinners.

 

[Spinaroonie]

We need more dems like Traficant.

He was framed. I read it on freetraficant.com and traficant.com.

The guy is fucking awesome.

 

[Sillyman]

The democrats have been losing because they have been sucking up to the wrong people. They have been ignoring most of their core voters to go suck dick among office park dads and such crap. I don't see a great unified Republican front either. What is the Republican focus? We want to go to war, sorta?

 

[RisiaSkye]

The democrats have been losing because they have been sucking up to the wrong people. They have been ignoring most of their core voters to go suck dick among office park dads and such crap. I don't see a great unified Republican front either. What is the Republican focus? We want to go to war, sorta?

Amen to that. Convictions are not the strong suit of contemporary national politics.

 

[Weevil]

The democrats have been losing because they have been sucking up to the wrong people. They have been ignoring most of their core voters to go suck dick among office park dads and such crap. I don't see a great unified Republican front either. What is the Republican focus? We want to go to war, sorta?

That's bullshit. The "war on terrorism" focus is a short term vote winning strategy that enables them to hold onto power so they can pursue their incredibly focused "Don't let those greedy starving kids take any of your cigar money" campaign.