I heartily agree that Bush got more votes for not being Al Gore than he got for any other reason and that it will haunt him in the upcoming elections.
Most analysts that followed his father's re-election bid agreed that Bush I's single biggest failing was conveying any sort of connection to the population in general. We had a down cycle in the ecomony (it always cycles) perhaps due to taxes forced on Bush by the Democratic Congress, things got a lot worse before they started to turn around. Then the cycle reversed (it always does) and things started to improve.
When he said "I wouldn't call a 1% rise in GDP to be a stagnant economy", Clinton said "I feel your pain" and it cost Bush the race.
Maybe it's a family thing.
That's a decent analysis MP, People do vote their pocket books ..generally. Of course the "Read my lips, no new taxes." Was sort of a doom saying for him too.
But I heard a great conspiracy theory I thought you might enjoy.
Daddykins Bush took a dive in 92. Why? Well, Iran/Contra was big news and Oliver North had already been convicted (later overturned on a technicality), but Poindexter and MacFarland were under indictment and were scheduled to go on trial the beginning of 93. So the RNC gave Bush two choices.
1. Run hard and win, but Poindexter and MacFarland will flip Bush avoiding jail if Bush doesn't pardon them before trial. But a pardon would mean a long impeachment of Bush during his second term.
2. Take a dive, lose the elections, then pardon those two scoundrels while he is a lame duck, thus preventing any more heat on Bush himself. But promise Bush the RNC will make sure one of his sons becomes president later. Bush did pardon many involved in the now infamous Xmas Eve pardons.
It's a fun conspiracy theory isn't it..
Hey wait.... One of his sons DID subsequently become POTUS. And Bush did run a lousy campaign in 92.
Nah... no black helicopters over my house.
Warm regards.
TET
Funny.
Could be true (not VERY high on my probablility index, but possible) .... it's just easier to explain his defeat to more practical reasons.
Iran/Contra was one of those deals that even the moderates were amazed that most people didn't ACTUALLY give a rat's butt about when it came right down to it. Very few LIKED it, but the average guy just didn't really care, yanno?
Which brings me to an interesting point. I propose that we who DO care about such things ACTUALLY grasp, say, 95% what's given us, and that perhaps we only get TOLD 20% of what's really going on. Based in this, we try to form opinions ... or at least put enough to thought into it to ask intelligent questions.
Then Jay Leno asks a grown man to name the Country on the south border of Canada and he says "Mexico"
A provider I invited to go to Las Cruces tells me she can't go because she doesn't have a passport.
Richard Dawson tells a woman to name something yellow and she says "An Orange"
Our next President may end up being the one with the coolest tattoo.
I finally got to watch Bush's interview with Russert in Meet the press.
I can't believe I voted for him!!! On top of everything else, sometimes his answers didn't match the questions. Then a bizarre set of reasons for going to war with Iraq.
He turned me from an Independent, to a devout Democrat. There are millions like us. Even if he delivers Osama, no way he is going to get re-elected.
It's really simple. The Christian right loves Bush because of his stands on partial-birth abortions, stem cell research, school prayer and the "holy war" (according to one of his generals) we are waging in Iraq.
Virtually all of the fiscal conservatives abhor Bush because this guy hasn't figured out that there are dire economic consequences when the federal government engages in reckless deficit spending. Yes, Virginia, a $500+ billion deficit can be used as the dictionary definition of reckless deficit spending.
This, plus the fact that the guy went AWOL for about 5 months; on top of an interview granted to "Meet the Press" that even his most ardent supporters say was awful; and, the fact that he has been more than slightly disingenuous concerning the reason(s) we invaded a sovereign nation all say that this President should be in office approximately another 11.5 months.
A one-term President; like father, like son...
Nice try, liberals. Conservatives seek to preserve the ideas and institutions they believe make this country great: God, country, and capitalism. An atheist conservative? Possible, but very rare. It's like claiming to be a Black Jew.
In all seriousness, Bush will win again not because he is so great, but because his opponents are just so damn irresponsible. We face a very real international terrorist threat that liberals seem to shrug off. We can't wait for them to strike us again; rather, we should take the fighting to them and keep hitting them 'till they cry uncle. Rudy Guilliani used the same ohilosophy in going after criminals in NY. At the time, liberals decried him as Hitler incarnate who was fighting a losing war. Ten years later, we can only marvel at how right Rudy was. NY is a totally new place. We need to take the same approach on the national scale...and not wait for the UN's permission to do so.
To his credit, the author made a valid point with Bush's domestic spending. It's clearly out-of-control, but that doesn't mean people will run out and vote Democrat!! Afterall, the Left's real gripe with Bush's programs are that Bush isn't spending enough! (ie Medicare drug plan and "No Child Left Behind" Act). Had Gore won the election, the deficit may be well in the trillions.
Conservatives will come out for Bush in force. If Kerry is to have any chance in November, the Democrats will have to get their act together and project a coherent message for the American people. Likewise, liberals in general will have to vote democrat and shun these silly, loser third parties. Again, the Left is too fringe and splintered to do this and yet again, you'll lose!
-> It's like claiming to be a Black Jew.
There are about 60,000,000 Falasha Black Jews of Ethiopia,sorry.
-> An atheist conservative?
I don't think conservatives believe in God. Its like "no new taxes", Its just said to win an election. Jesus was the love and peace brother number 1. Even when it meant his personal death.
Further more the sermon on the mount leaves no doubt that he was with the angles and not the demons (Bush/Cheny)
-> We face a very real international terrorist threat that liberals seem to shrug off.
Well Bush had Colin Powell walk out on the World Conference on Racism when they discussed calling Israel's policy against the Arabs racist. So it seems to the world that the Americans will not talk about Israel's motives. Of Course, "W"'s father is in a partnership with the Saudi Royal Family and a few Bin Ladens. The Carlyle Group. The group includes 3 former directors of the CIA (include Bush), JIm Baker Secretary of State/Treasury, former pres of the philippines, former PM of the UK and many others (the Bin Ladens leave after 9/11). So the business relationship are very very tight. Could that inspire hate against the U.S?
if i'm reading your post correctly,
you're saying that conservatives would
rather keep an incompetent republican
in office rather than vote for anyone
democrat.
conservatives would rather bankrupt the
country with irresponsible spending and
poorly constructed budgets and programs
than put a democrat in office.
conservatives choose incoherence over a
competent and intelligent leader.
i'm not liberal or conservative but i'm
happy you pointed these things out for me
it gives me a better understanding of the
feeble minds that actually have power.
Well ... you read it right, but perhaps you mis-drew the conclusion.
What he's saying is that it's a real possibility that the opposition party, once in power, may spend EVEN MORE than the conservatives.
If you look at the fundamental spending of the federal government, you'll see that Federal Entitlement programs (that's the "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" department) is larger than all the all the other expenditures combined. Reduce military spending? We could cancel ALL military spending and it would barely make a dent.
If the one party was there saying "we'll raise taxes to whatever point we have to raise them to fund our programs and reduce the deficit" then we'd have a clear "yes/no" decision to make.
If they were to say "we'll cut federal spending across the board on a straight percentage until we balance the budget" THAT would be a clear "yes/no" decision for us.
But think about this .. have you ever seen (or would ever WANT to see) a President that was truky as powerful as they promise they will be during their campaign speeches? Every speech is "I'll do this and I'll do that" when making the promises, then when they get to Washington, they find that the position is powerful but not omnipotent and they have to work with the people already there. Politics is the art of compromise and a really, really GOOD negotiation is where both parties leave the table a little bit unhappy.
Sadly, we both have much of that anymore. We don't seem to have many statesmen like we used to have.
My take on the whole game is that every one of them, both parties, are far more concerned with beating the other guy than winning.
A review of Websters Dictionary tells us:
lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
So by accepting the proclaimed axiom that conservatives are the opposite of liberals, this means that conservative views are:
Limited to established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas, and enthralled by bigotry.
Against proposals for reform, closed to new ideas for progress, and intolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; narrow-minded.
Sound about right?
We're all supposed to vote for George W Bush because he is a conservative. As a conservative, he won't spend us into oblivion (anybody seen the budget deficit lately??).
We're all supposed to vote for conservative George W Bush because he's a veteran (even though the records he caused to be released show that he was AWOL for 5 months).
We're all supposed to vote for conservative George W Bush because he is morally upright and will defend the Christian way of life (Do any of you "conservatives" who write on this website doubt for a second that he would prosecute everyone involved in the activity that brought us all to this website??). Make no mistake, George W Bush, when he is appearing in front of the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson would lead the chorus in a round of "Onward Christian Solders."
Understand, this President and his Attorney General would dearly love to prosecute and incarcerate anyone and everyone who has anything to do with the activities we describe on this website.
Please, I would love to hear how all you "conservatives" reconcile your beliefs versus the acts in which you engage. Or, so you tell us you engage. It is the dictionary definition of hypocrisy to espouse(and to support those who espouse)Christian family values and then go out and pay someone for companionship and/or sex. In most states, a good number of the activities in which we dearly enjoy to participate is called "sodomy." If you think I'm wrong, call up Ralph Reed.
IMHO: all you "conservatives" who write of your exploits on this site are either hypocrites or bullshit artists. Personally, I can't stand liars or hypocrites. Oh, please don't whine about military matters, that deserter from the National Guard hasn't a clue.
Okay, "conservatives" here's your chance to defend yourselves.
Please try to do so cogently.
Obviously you don't live in the liberal run state of California or hypocrisy as it relates to this hobby would certainly include the liberals.
First of all most laws and prosecution related to this hobby are at the local and state level. In general all Bush or his attorney general can do is make sermons from the pulpit about family values.
In the state of California we have a lot of liberals who are opposed to this hobby because it is degrading to women. I am sure plenty of them patronize these very same ladies.
Several democratically controlled cities have passed a law which allows a john's car to be confiscated and sold if arrested for solicitation whether he is in fact ultimately convicted or not. The laws have actually been opposed by the ACLU. This brainstorm started with Jerry Brown the current mayor of Oakland and former governor of California AKA Governor Moonbeam.
If a john is arrested in the great liberal metropolis of San Francisco he must attend education classes where ex hookers will drum into his head how his frequenting providers and paying them large sums of money destroys their lives.
The crackdowns in all of these cities have been engineered by mayors and city councils that consider themselves to be moderate to liberal democrats.
I could continue with a few more examples but you get the idea. The hypocrisy brush can be used to paint both conservatives and liberals.
Stumpy, I'm not talking about the hypocrisy of the politicians. I expect a politician to do what is expedient. That's how he wins elections. I once heard my great-grandfather define an honest politician as someone who, once you bought him, stayed bought.
On the other hand, I'm talking about the hypocrisy of the "conservatives" who use this site; not politicians or anyone else. I asked how they reconcile the conservative political beliefs they espouse (and their support of politicians who espouse those same views) with the acts in which they allegedly engage. Mindful of the fact that those same politicians would, given the opportunity, eagerly prosecute and incarcerate all of us who enjoy the particular endeavor that brings us to this site.
I find it somewhat curious that none of them have posted a response, not even a peep, to my post. Hmmm.
I was away for the weekend, enjoying the desert and some really great golf courses. That is why I have responded this late.
I mostly agree with the poster who has stated what the liberals in Califonria have DONE, not what you extract from opinions given by conservatives! One's actions speak a great deal more to me than rehetoric. I am pretty well read, a political junkie, but I have never heard President Bush or John Ashcroft talk about incarcerating hobbists! Maybe you could enlighten me.
I am secret about my hobby life, always will be. I don't tend to see high volume ladies for that reason. I don't post as many reviews because I tend to repeat, where I feel my anonimity will be respected.
Some of the excitement is in doing something clandestine, against the law. I guess I am a hypocrite for being a Law and Order guy, but breaking the prositution laws at the same time. OK, I'm a hyprocite when it comes to pussy.
-- Modified on 2/16/2004 10:44:16 AM
I tip my hat to the man who can golf in February. A tad bit too cold here. Even orange balls won't help (-14 last night and 3.5 ft snow on ground). I try to stay out of California. My ex lives in La Jolla. The last time I visited, I counted no less than seven (7) LE agencies that had jurisdiction in her neighborhood. Helos flying overhead, to me, is a bit much.
Insofar as the current administration is concerned, their agenda is one driven by the Christian right. Mr Bush ran on the premise that he was a principled, conservative candidate of Christian morality.
The Department of Justice bankrolled the prosecution of Tommy Chong (of "Cheech & Chong" fame) in state court. Mr Chong's heinous crime?? His firm manufactured water pipes (aka "bongs").
There was nothing in the products' literature advocating the use of illegal drugs. Undercover FBI agents and paid informants attended a trade show where Mr Chong was showing his wares. The prosecution was based upon conversations allegedly had with Mr Chong and his sales reps. TC now has 3.5 yrs to refine his sales pitch.
In Pittsburgh's US District Court, a California firm was indicted on obscenity charges. The statutes used to indict this firm have not been used for over 15 yrs. Like or dislike Bill Clinton, the fact is his AG, Janet Reno, curbed the overzealous use of these rather draconian statutes which established these "victimless: crimes.
Within the last week, there was a major bust of several massage parlors in the Pittsburgh area. According to KDKA's 11 o'clock news, an integral part of LE's investigation was searching the internet (according to the reporter, was "ASPD").
All of us post on this site as if we are doing nothing wrong. To the best of my knowledge, our activities are illegal in at least 48 states. Our activities certainly run counter to the agenda put forth by the Christian right and the current administration.
I have no problem with those who wish to support conservative politicians and a conservative agenda. However, the current President certainly is not a fiscal conservative (witness: the deficit); he is certainly not principled (even supporters in his own party admit that the AL Nat'l Guard records released do not counter the charge Mr Bush did not attend to his Nat'l Guard duties for 5 mos); and his Attorney General has promulgated policies and practices inimical to our (hobbyist) interests.
Why would you support someone who wants to arrest you?? Why would you support someone who isn't what he alleges himself to be?
There are African Jews in Ethiopia, afterall the RELIGION (not race) started in Kush or Egypt. Furthermore, if Moses was a Jewish slave that passed for a member of the royal family, he had to look just like them. This, along with the color of skin of those born in Bethlehem are some lies that we must embrace or our political ideologies will continue to be lies. I saw the trailer of the new Mel Gibson Movie, and it should be banned or chastised for its blatant disregard to the truth of origin of indigenous africans. What is this, 1950 or something when the TEN Commandments were made and accepted as valid. When all that it did was make people continue their journey of lies. "There is nothing more dangerous than Conscious Supidity." MLK (1967) when speaking about americas involvement in vietnam.
