Deja Vu All Over Again
By streiff Posted in 1992 | 2008 | Barack Obama — Comments (57) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'm not a doom and gloomer like some of my colleagues. At this point I have more faith in reading the entrails of a goat than I do either on polls or Intrade futures. But I am very worried.
I'm worried for two reasons. First, I don't believe a lot of people are taking Obama seriously -- they think we have dodged the bullet now that Hillary Clinton no longer actively campaigning. Secondly, I've seen this before.
I haven't technically slipped into geezerhood but I've been around, as an adult, for a while. My first presidential vote was for Jimmy Carter. But this isn't about my bad judgment as a college student. This is about 1992.
Read on.
During the 1992 presidential campaign I was an active duty Army officer assigned to the Army Staff but detailed as military aide to an assistant secretary in one of the civilian agencies. My boss was a political appointee. My contemporaries in the immediate office of the assistant secretary were also all political appointees. Their jobs were dependent on GHW Bush winning the election and though they couldn't campaign for him, and as far as I know they didn't, I did come into daily contact with all manner of folks who were very active in GOP politics and the campaign of Bush père. So other than reading the papers I was pretty conversant in the campaign strategy and gossip.
There were two main themes present during the campaign:
Experience Deficit.
The Bush campaign was nearly ecstatic when Bill Clinton clenched the nomination. In their words he was "the failed governor of a small state." Bush41 suffered lagging popularity but when viewed in the context of his entire presidency, even discounting the Gulf War boost, this was an anomaly. He'd successfully, or so it seemed at the time, negotiated the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the breakup of the Soviet Union. His campaign could not believe that America would toss the most highly-résumé-ed president of all time for an obvious lightweight.
Character Deficit
Unlike today, 1992 was still close enough to the Vietnam War and a large population of live WW II vets that "draft dodger" was thought to be a killer. GHW Bush was the youngest commissioned aviator -- he received his commission and wings at age 18 -- in the US Navy in WW II and a combat veteran.
Anyone who thinks Bill Clinton's horndoggedness was suddenly revealed after he was elected is simply delusional. Clinton's serial philandering was well known to the Bush camp during the campaign. When Clinton was chairman of the National Association of Governors a group of his fellow governors pulled him aside at one of their conventions at counselled him to stop his relentless and public pursuit of everything that was even vaguely female. His Little Rock exploits were well known. And I heard convincing, to the point that I am still convinced, the Hillary, while not quite as heroic in her extracurriculars as Bill, was certainly not suffering in silence.
Against this was devoted husband and father. (The seriousness with which the Clinton campaign took this threat is best demonstrated in the shameless way in which that campaign flogged the Jennifer Fizgerald story)
Bill Clinton was a deeply flawed man, and contrary to many I look at his presidency and I see much more of a combinations "Animal House" and "holiday from history" than I see evidence of some immense political talent. Having said that, the Bush campaign had its own flaws.
Abandoned by the base
Bush's "no new taxes" pledge and his subsequent punking by George Mitchell and Tom Foley -- not to say they were the only ones but they were at the head of the train -- resulted in a Republican base that was less than enthusiastic about donating time, talent, and treasure to the cause of a man who, rightly or wrongly, was perceived as selling them out. If you look at Bush's political history you also can see that he was never a real good fit with the Reagan Administration (full disclosure, I voted for Bush in the 1980 primary) and his lack of conservative credentials restricted his ability to make a deal that Reagan could have made and walked away from unscathed.
It's Mine
The Bush campaign believed that a combination of devine right and noblesse oblige would ensure his election. His experience, his upbringing, his talent, his demeanor were all in sharp contrast to the vertiable Star Wars bar scene of felons, unindicted coconspirators, degenerates, and mental deficients that was the Clinton campaign. There is a simple Rorschach test for where you stand on this. If you can recall the presidential debate in Richmond, VA do you remember Bush checking his watch or Pony-Tail-Guy as the main vignette?
Lack of Fire
This is a subset of the notion of the presidency being owed to a candidate and a failure to take your opponent seriously. If there was ever a more vulnerable candidate than Bill Clinton they have not run for office in my life time. Gary Hart was a veritable pillar of morality and propriety by comparison. Yet, for a lot of reasons, the Bush campaign made a conscious decision to not only not go after Clinton for the moral cretin he is, but they made the decision to actively discourage third parties from doing so on their behalf. The best explanation that I've ever heard for this came from a senior staffer on the Bush campaign who said that Bush was so personally stung by the allegations of racism directed at him over the Al Gore inspired Willie Horton ad that he refused to allow any attacks on Clinton's personal life. Whatever. Politics, as they say, ain't beanbag.
Of course there is a huge difference. Ross Perot is not running and in 1992 Ross Perot earned a place somewhere in the Ninth Circle of Hell for bringing eight years of darkness on this country. Contrary to what Paultards believe Ron Paul really isn't as attractive, smart, interesting or substantial as Ross Perot.
The similarities here are stunningly obvious.
Right now a lot of conservatives are gleeful over an Obama candidacy. They believe that America will see Obama as they do. A lightweight, in fact, if we assume his public statements actually reflect his intellect he has to rate somewhere between "pinhead" and "zero gravity". Inexperienced. A poseur. Most likely a crook. Insincere. All in all he has nothing in his character or experience to recommend him for the presidency. His Chicago background, given his association with convicted felon Tony Rezko, is much what we'd expect of a Chicago machine pol. His association with convicted terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn should be campaign killers as should his long and intimate association with a series of racist ministers. Obama is not only unqualified, he is a weak candidate.
That being said, McCain goes into the election with a base that is effectively alienated from him. Unlike Bush41, this is not the result of a single instance crystallizing latent suspicions. McCain has made a career of actively jamming his thumbs into the eyes of the conservative movement just for the fun of doing it. Though I will vote for him in November, I'm not really sure I'd cross the the street to pee on him if he were on fire. His campaign seems to think they can create history in 2008 by beating their opponent on the issues. Good luck. If we go back through the recent elections we find they were decided not on issues but on metaphors. Kerry windsurfing. Al Gore inventing the internet. Bob Dole falling off the stage. The Man From Hope. Dukakis in a tank. Etc. For those who think issues actually matter I'd remind them that Obama has carried the Democrat primary, the election where people who actually care about politics and policy vote in disproportionate numbers compared with the short bus general election, on nothing more substantive than being an attractive black candidate mouthing fairly nebulous rhetoric promising HOPECHANGE.
The McCain camp has decided, maybe rightly, that if they go after Obama on anything other than his policy positions they will be accused of racism. I have news for them. They are going to be accused of racism and the sooner they man up and deal with that the better off they will be.
Even if the low risk strategy for McCain in dealing with the inevitable charges of racism is to only deal with policy differences, somebody has to do the heavy lifting. The Reverend Wright is an issue that can strip away all but the most liberal white voters from Obama. Ayers is an issue. Rezko is an issue. His quote-a-matic wife is a potential issue. But they are only issues if McCain lets them be. People don't form 527s and give lots of money if they become social pariahs on their own side. They expect to be disavowed, but they also expect the wink and nod. There is no evidence that McCain will do that. In fact, when you look at McCain's experience in South Carolina in 2000, his reaction was not to fight back against some rather scurrilous rumors but to play Achilles and go off to his tent to sulk. Where he's been for eight years.
Obama is imminently beatable and if elected promises to be an unmitigated failure. All that aside there is little evidence that the McCain campaign realizes their own weak position or is mentally tough enough to do what it takes to win.
Deja Vu All Over Again 57 Comments (0 topical, 57 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Aaargh. I'm a lot younger than you, and was a lot less engaged in politics during Bush/Clinton. Nonetheless I remember Pony-tail-guy during one of the debates.
P-T-G proclaimed that the President (and ergo, the Government) should be a father figure for the American public, and asked how each would treat his proverbial children (ie, the public).
Bush should have disputed the premise of the question. Instead, he just mumbled and ran out the clock. I remember yelling at the TV set that we don't need nor want preachy top-down paternalism from Washington. What we needed was a fair, consistent set of laws to govern the nation, and for the government to otherwise get out of our lives. What we got was Al Gore lecturing us, while Bill was feeling up his interns.
As a matter of fact, I think Pony-tail-guy was a defining moment, as a young voter, that put me on the path to Conservatism. I hope I'm remembering the right Pony-Tail-Guy.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
Holy smokes, I just realized Bush/Clinton was 1992, or 16 years ago. Maybe I'm not as young as I thought.
Along those lines, I also remember the Carter malaise years, even though I was in grade school. I remember the hostage debacle, and can clearly recall the change to optimism as the Reagan years evolved. Nonetheless I couldn't understand why my middle school teachers were so vitriolic against Reagan, when conditions were visibly better.
I make a point of talking about the misery of the Carter years to the young'uns around the office, as well as in my class. (I teach a night course in Finance). That has been my main contribution so far to the McCain campaign (along with my $50 checks).
Wow. I realized I've become the old guy around the office who bores people with the "I can remember when...." stories.
I caught myself yesterday when talking about a new technology saying "Why can't they just leave it alone. The old way was better" At that point I realized that some 5 year old would have to set the clock on my disgronifier for me in the next few years because I'd be too old to know how.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
Who exactly are those people taking Obama lightly?!!
George Will who yesterday said Obama would crush McCain? Intrade accounts showing Obama up 64-34% today? the media proclaming Obama is the next messiah? Bush approval ratings of 26%?
I don't know any serious observer who actually thinks McCain will win easily, most don't even think it will be a close defeat!
"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment"- Barack Carter Obama
If Hillary had won the nomination, she would have been the Democratic nominee despite the wishes of the hard-core Left, and we know how the Clintons treat those that scorn them and get in their way.
Whereas Barack Obama truly is the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
Bush Sr. killed his presidency by going back on his 'no new taxes' pledge. I remember hearing about how the RNC was getting back drawings of lips instead of donations in their pre-paid envelopes. Despite what he accomplished afterwards, a trained monkey could have beaten him in the 1992 election.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
I would have voted for her. Better she and her party take the blame for the policies she and McCain both believe in and want to enact than the Republican Party. Furthermore, she has spent every ounce of political capitol she and her husband and all their friends had, even what they couldn't afford to spend. She would have had nothing to work with when elected. And, finally, Republican and conservative turnout on election day would have been so strong in effort to turn her out, that we might have retaken the Senate or the House or at least made the margins that much smaller...
As is, well, we're in for a world of hurt even (maybe especially) is McCain wins...
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
You can call Carter naive, ignorant, whatever. Obama is coldly calculating and will lie or change his story as needed to suit the moment. Carter was at least somewhat honest and well-meaning. He wasn't a millionaire going and in and I doubt he's one now. Carter would be merely useless if he'd keep his mouth shut, but Obama is far worse.
Carter entered the race as an experienced governor, naval officer and peanut wholesaler, which tells me his economic ideas were untried at the time and only proved later to be bad. Obama has the benefit of history to inform his economic ideas but he still chooses his path, which you might call fast-track malaise.
Bush Senior lost mostly because he alienated the GOP base.
But in 2008, the GOP base has shrunk, according to the polls. A candidate who turned out the GOP base in droves would still lose, because there just aren't as many of them as in 2004.
What the GOP base doesn't seem to accept is that their size and clout has shrunk, and hence any GOP candidate for President has to have other priorities than schmoozing them.
But, that aside. We don't need a shmoozer. We got that with Clinton and Bush. We need someone who just IS. Jindal comes to mind. Reagan was terrific. FDT would've been good. Clint Eastwood...
"Do you feel lucky, Barack? Well? Do ya?"
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
different with Obama compared to Clinton '92--Billy Bob had the sense to present himself as a centrist to get elected. Obama is presenting himself as a hardcore leftist who constantly contradicts any statement he makes to attempt to triangulate. Such as his performance at AIPAC followed by his weasel remarks afterwards about Jerusalem and the Palestinians.
Obama and his team are presenting nothing but more of a burden on the bulk of the American people. At a time when the economy is taking hits all over the place, and due to take more, this is not going to resonate.
we no longer have to rely solely on the MSM for our info this time. Thank God for alternative media!
When is the last time you've heard the MSM challenge Obama's repeated claims that he'll unite the country through his experience reaching across the aisle as he has done in his many bipartisan accomplishments?
will EVER tell the truth about this man anymore than they told the truth about Clinton. But thanks to the internet, America knows about Rev. Wright and Pfleger, Ayers and Dorhn, etc. The MSM was never going to make those stories public. Once it becomes big enough on the net, the MSM has to pick it up. Grudgingly, but eventually.
The other 30% are Obama supporters.
Their partisanship is backfiring.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I agree with the similarities, but I disagree with the idea that the political landscape is equal. We have epic differences in how one reaches the office today with the advent of the 527 and as Moe said the other day this is the first election with Youtube. Blogging in 1992 obviously was nil but at the same time, even in 2004 so few readers of blogs existed compared to today. And lets not forget the email forward. I must get 20 a day with the usual Obamas a (insert catch phrase here).
This will change how McCain can proceed, but at the same time, I totally agree that McCain lacks a certain fire in the belly to make this happen. I'm hit with this on Drudge this morning "McCain wants low corporate taxes, regulated CEO pay. He makes a great statement on helping business, then insults the leadership of private business.
But I am putting my most support in the 527's to drive home the Obama's No Good message to the general public. I'm not convinced McCain will do it, just like GHW Bush. I remember 1992, it was a boring time when it should have been all fireworks.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
I think it's the reverse: Noted conservatives, such as Mark Steyn, seem to have resigned themselves to an Obama win. They're not being complacent; they're in despair and defeatism.
A huge problem McCain has in 2008 that Bush Senior didn't have in 1988, is that McCain is asking to succeed the highly unpopular standard-bearer of his party (Bush). That hasn't happened since 1876. Bush Senior didn't have that problem; he was asking to succeed Reagan, who was highly popular.
Since Bush's approval rating is now down to 30%, McCain has to win votes from 21% of the electorate who don't like Bush, in order to win 51%. McCain's appeal "Even if you don't like Bush, vote for me anyway" is not an easy sell.
As for the GOP base, many of them don't really care who wins. One issue that they feel very strongly about, immigration, has been neutralized by having both the GOP and Dem candidates committed to immigration reform. Nobody is promising them the red-meat solution of deportations. If you're a single-issue nativist voter and your issue is keeping Hispanic culture from diluting Anglo culture, then it won't matter to you who wins.
(And no, I'm not buying this spiel that all they care about is legality. If they were, they would be advocating increasing legal immigration; but guys like Mark Krikorian want to reduce that too.)
apathetic enough not to "really care who wins." It's rare that I see someone state that on this site anymore and rightly so. We care tremendously and that's why we keep doing what we do. I agree with Neil, you're a moby. And, NO, the issue of ILLEGAL immigration has not been neutralized. Take your "nativist" remarks and stick 'em where the sun don't shine, as well as your ignorant assumptions that deportation is what we all long for.
"Nobody is promising them the red-meat solution of deportations. If you're a single-issue nativist voter and your issue is keeping Hispanic culture from diluting Anglo culture, then it won't matter to you who wins.
(And no, I'm not buying this spiel that all they care about is legality. If they were, they would be advocating increasing legal immigration; but guys like Mark Krikorian want to reduce that too.)"
Exactly the attitude that turns conservatives off to mccain and his supporters. Going to make an argument why we need increased legal immigration? Are you going to defend illegal immigration? No, you are just going to attack those trying to do something about it.
become your opinions of John McCain, he does part of Barak Obama's work for him.
At a rate of 6,000 earmarks per spending bill, Speaker Pelosi is selling America's future to the special intrest groups.
It's YOUR attitude that chased me out of the GOP in the late 1990s and turned me into an Independent.
I was a strong supporter of Reagan (greatest President of my lifetime), and I voted for Ford and Nixon and Bush 41 also. I absolutely despised Carter.
I have always been a foreign-policy hawk, and fiscally fairly conservative (though far from a libertarian). On those issues, I was absolutely in favor of the GOP platform.
But when the GOP became a socially right-wing party, I got more and more disenchanted with it. The GOP is now catering more and more to a cohort that consists of Heterosexual White Married Anglo Protestants. Anybody else, they just aren't interested in appealing to. I couldn't believe the insults and invective being hurled at conservative Hispanic columnists like Linda Chavez.
The American Right is gradually abandoning the forward-looking, inclusive, optimistic, unifying model of Buckley and Reagan--the model that attracted young idealistic folks like me back in the 1970s. A model that could appeal to anyone, regardless of their ethnicity or personal lifestyle choices. It's reverting to the nativism of the 1930s and the Puritanism of the 19th century. And by doing so, it is reverting to a model that always lost elections and will continue to lose elections.
Any Party that would combine a hawkish foreign policy, fiscal responsibility and a live-and-let live attitude toward personal freedom and privacy would get my membership. Today. There are lot more Independent voters like me--we ought to be Republicans but we don't like the nativism and the Bible-thumping that's been coming out of the GOP these recent years.
That's what the GOP used to be, before 1978 when they formed a coalition with the Christian evangelicals and the nativists, who have become ever more powerful ever since.
America is becoming a more diverse society. Polls show that married white Protestants are now only 51% of the American population and declining steadily. That means that the cohort that has been the GOP's bread and butter is going to be a permanent minority in America. How can the GOP win elections if it doesn't reach out way beyond this base.
Back in the 1950s, the GOP base tended to be limited to white country-club snooty Anglo-Saxon Protestants. It didn't become the dominant party in America till it began to appeal to urban ethnics like Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans and even some Jews who had never voted Republican before. (Reagan got 40% of the Jewish vote in 1980.)
Now the GOP has to reach out again--to new fast-growing cohorts: Hispanics. Single moms. Etc. Otherwise once again it will be left with a steadily shrinking share of the total electorate.
Karl Rove understood that. That is why he and Bush thought it was so important for the GOP to get out in front of the Hispanic immigration problem, rather than act as if we considered them invaders.
You don't have to believe me. Go email Linda Chavez. Ask her about the treatment she got from the GOP base when she dared to come out in favor of immigration reform. Or, just browse her old columns on Townhall and look at the responses.
Now those were the greatest days of the GOP before all the WASPs ruined everything. And anything I disagree with is of course a matter of you being a religious zealot bent on curtailing freedom. Why argue the merit of your points when labels work so much better?
([/sarcasm]and for the record, I'm also in favor of increasing/overhauling legal immigration, I just choose not to be a jerk about it)
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
Really? So was the republican party for illegal immigration, gay marriage and abortion before 1978?
And didn't Reagan get elected twice President in the 80's. And didn't Republicans take the congress in the 90's.
So Karl Rove understood it. Lets look around at where he has taken the republican party today.
Some advice for you and the party. Stand on principles. Don't try to attract voters by changing what you stand for to get their vote. Convince them why you are right. Why, we might even convince Linda Chavez.
One issue that they feel very strongly about, immigration, has been neutralized by having both the GOP and Dem candidates committed to immigration reform. Nobody is promising them the red-meat solution of deportations. If you're a single-issue nativist voter and your issue is keeping Hispanic culture from diluting Anglo culture, then it won't matter to you who wins.
Read meat tastes good, when properly prepared. It's not quite as nourishing when it hasn't been defrosted or cooked.
You're mischaracterization of the anti-McCain-Kennedy position on immigration is so blatantly condescending, ignorant and elitist, I highly recommend that you blog on Slate.com instead.
At a rate of 6,000 earmarks per spending bill, Speaker Pelosi is selling America's future to the special intrest groups.
As for the GOP base, many of them don't really care who wins.
While there is some doom and gloom out there, and I too have my days, the base has not given-up. Many of us are disappointed that "our guy" did not get the nomination because most of us are not supporters of McCain. He is too liberal for us and as such we would prefer a conservative. Hence the reason why Jindal inspires us. But he too is an unknown.
A person that upholds conservative positions, ideals with an unwavering stance on standing behind those convictions will energize the GOP like Reagan. Why, because there are very few conservative in the GOP today. The big tent ideal has convoluted and minimized conservatives if for nothing more because we have accepted the premise for many of the liberals, and that is the wrong choice on the 1st step.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
"You're racist..."
"You don't care..."
Reagan didn't offer policies and positions in response to character attacks, he addressed them directly.
Unless McCain, not surrogates, not supporters, MCCAIN, can disarm such attacks, he will fail in exactly the same way that Bush has. He will let Obama set the field.
Member, American Conservative Party
"All that aside there is little evidence that the McCain campaign realizes their own weak position or is mentally tough enough to do what it takes to win."
More than McCain,that could be the epitath of the republican majority that republicans threw away.
May republicans not rest in peace. It's past time to fight back!
It's going to be President Obama. McCain is the wrong GOP candidate; he was when he first won the primaries; he is now; and he will be in the general election. If he gets on the stage with Obama, he will look every bit his 72 years, and will effectively beat himself. With all due respect to his service to our country, this does not entitle him to "his turn" to be President. He's not an electrifying campaigner; he's got a very weak campaign strategy as far as I can tell; and he's not a strong Conservative, I don't care what he says. So unless something dramatic in the geo-political universe occurs, that startles our electorate and shines a light on Obama's true inexperience, the YouTube and American Idol crowd are going with the young one. And again, let's not forget, we're in this mess because of some serious missteps by President Bush and the most feckless group of congressman and senators the GOP has ever been saddled with.
our congressmen and senators who sold themselves like harlots, and a president who thought he could play ball with the dems.
Maybe we need a tough defeat, so adversity can build character.
To a conservative, seeing is believing. To a liberal, believing is seeing.
I worry a little but see the polls and intrade as BS.
First, who is voting on Intrade? The wealthy who have money to waste. Many are Barack supporters anyway. McCain has a strong base of the lower income and people who are in the heartland, not in the trading world.
Even in polls and the RCP map I see way too much BS. They give states with no data to Obama, even if Bush won them by a good margin in 2000/2004. If McCain has a 4% lead its a tossup state (Even if it was Bush in 2004 or trending repub/center) If Obama has a 4% lead then its a Dem state, with a chance to lose (Again even if it is a Bush state and trending Repub.)
Obama has the news push now, he beat the unbeatable and he gets the majority of coverage (Not to mention "Pollsters" giving out national polling results that are 51% Dem, 22% Repub and 25% Indy. and Obama still is only leading by 4%)
As of right now McCain can give up GA (McCain +13%)and South Carolina (McCain +6%) and if he can take WI (Obama +1.4%) and Ohio (Obama +2%) and he'll win.
Hopefully McCain will get back that toughness he had, show he's pissed (not a loose cannon) about how we've had our tax dollars wasted on 32,000 Pork projects and how no one seems to care. He needs to make up with the SoCos and take that little hit to his pride.
The oddest thing that gave me faith in the election was when riding down the elevator in work (NYC Lib Heaven). Once a executive was in with just me, news about someone endorsing Obama came up, he turned and looked at me, a 23 year old male who by all means would be thought of as a Lib based age/area i'm in, he looked at the TV in the elevator, seen the endorsement and said "Wow like an endorsement is gonna get me to vote for him" I was floored. Second there were two building repair men in with me, union workers and most likely not in the highest income bracket, one white and one black, and they started talking about how McCain is going to squash Obama in the general. Sure they might be thinking "Oh he'll get squashed because he's black" but it sounded more like they had faith in McCain and the people in this country to vote for him.
Sure its not "Insider Political Knowledge" but hell theres more middle and lower income people who will vote, and if they choose McCain we'll have a much better 4 years to come.
Voting for the Sexy(Pres) - Sexy(VP) Dream Ticket
Jindal/Palin 2012
...is that in '92, the people rejected Bush, but necessarily the GOP or the conservative message...as conservatives in the GOP were ascendant.
In '08, the people are rejected the GOP and either mistakingly believe that conervative = GOP or that the GOP isn't conservative. This is not like '92...but more like '32, especially when we see the special election parallels.
H gave us 8 years of Reagan.
A modestly competent president would have been able to win re-election against any R (watergate was still fresh) and then Reagan would have been too old in '84.
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,
At the risk of being accused of fuzzy math, GHWB trounced Dukakis 53-46 in 1988.
In 1992, Clinton beat him 43-38. So, yes, Perot drew from both Republicans and Democrats - 15 from Republicans and 3 from Democrats. That's equality for you!
Which, of course, should have served as a wake-up call for the Republican Party that the conservative base was upset with their ways.
That didn't seem to work. Corruption is growing in the established Republican Congressmen just as it is rampant in the Democrat Congressmen.
Each side votes for 'earmarks' to help out their own friends and family, to the tune of millions. It is so bad that even Fox News had a special on it this weekend.
People who draw attention to it quickly find themselves cast out of the limelight.
Given the Conservative desire to stop wasting money, if the Republican Party is going to fall into the same 'Feeding from the government trough' trap the Democrats are in, one is hard pressed to blame a third party candidate for the loss of votes. (That, of course, won't stop people from doing it. MUCH easier to blame a third party than for EITHER party to acccept responsibility for their own actions)
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Set your kids up with cushy jobs.
Maybe get a very nice house at a discount price.
Have some incredibly fun vacation travel with women that are way out of your league.
Wouldn't you ?
That is what we are fighting.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Exactly. We're fighting corruption of Character and the temptation to 'extend influence' for personal gain.
As Glenn Beck and a few others have said, one has to kind of wonder about the character of someone who'd want to be in politics.
We have some VERY good people in Congress, some good republicans that are GREAT people who get far too little credit (or press)
My congressmen, I would hold, are in that group.
However, we have come to expect it from our Congressmen, so when we see such lack of Character, we just shrug it off and reelect them.
As to your question personally? No. I'd feel humiliated for life to have squandered taxpayer dollars to pad my wallet or that of my family or friends. I have strict morals when it comes to the role of the Congressman (Or any politician) They are called public servants for a reason... too many have forgotten that and use the term in public when in private they mean 'royalty'
Unfortunately, I'm not a Congressman, nor will I ever receive enough press to run for Congress when I can qualify. Nor would I 'fit in' when I got there.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
And it should not be taken lightly. McCain's camp is marginally less politically savvy than he is (in short, paralyzed from the neck up) - and that should raise flags all across the right.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Who know what they are doing all seem to be on Team Obama.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
in MA, I think that our main worry should be about our own base. Most democrats and independents I talk to have no intention of voting for Obama, and many are downright fearful of him. Let Obama be Obama and the democrat base will implode (other than the 90+% of the black population). McCain needs to shore up the conservative base with statements and policy plans that will bring them out in November. We don't need "Obama Light". Just let Obama and the democrats self-destruct. Get out of their way.
If Dems and Indies won't vote for Obama, Sen. McCain can give the Base the proverbial bird and win the election in November.
And if it doesn't work, it's ok because the loss can always be blamed on "Third Party" candidates and the people who voted for them.
As long as the fault doesn't fall at the feet of the RNC, they'll have no problem losing. (besides, if they're not in power, they're not expected to produce.... they can just complain and continue the gravy train)
Who do I REALLY feel sorry for? Good conservative republican congressmen.
I don't know how they do it.
I'm a big fan of both Inhofe and Coburn. I like Tom Cole and Mary Fallin as well.
I'm also a fan of Istook and voted for him in 2006. (the first election I could vote in after moving here in 2005)
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
if this is a repeat of the 2006 election. And, LK, you are right, alot of good people will be casualties of that type of election.
Well, look at it this way:
If both sides are being THAT corrupt and only out to help themselves at the expense of the taxpayer.... why not just vote for the one that promises you free stuff?
If there's no actual difference in Character, then why vote for the one that'd stop the free money for the voters?
One group is corrupt and is leaping to the left. The other group is corrupt and shuffling to the left. At that point, is there really a difference?
To end this and regain ACTUAL power in this country, the RNC REALLY needs to find people of GOOD character, then push them in an attempt to retake Congress.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
loss as a necessary evil. I sometimes find myself leaning in that direction especially since I don't think Obama will be a horrible president. However, I stop short of fully adopting that point of view because I think John McCain will be a very good president and because I believe we can get our act back together without blowing up the party. I could be wrong but I hope I'm right.
for me it is all about this:
We have a Democrat Congress, which is likely to expand in November.
To ward off the radical Left's agenda, we need a STRONG president who will gladly veto and oppose everything they put up.
Obama will GLADLY sign it all.
I think that McCain will also sign it all, especially if it is a 'compromise' with Democrats in exchange for war funding or judicial appointment votes (which the Left will oppose anyway, regardless of promises to compromise....)
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
but i get what you are saying.
conservatives need to keep in mind that we might not agree with 30 or 40 % of mccain's positions, but there is a lot at stake in this election.
i will keep my mouth shut otherwise out of courtesy as i am a new user here but wanted to make this comment.
Social conservatives got into politics when they saw the underlying spiritual principles of our great country being eroded by the underlying spiritual principles of the democratic party: Marxism - Secular Humanism - Macro Evolution.
Our unique American political society was the product of Protestant Christianity. The principles of rule of law, limited government, and society of peers are rooted in Christian principles developed by people deeply steeped in Biblical knowledge. You cannot split one from the other with out getting something different.
What is supplanting that foundation is Marxism and secular humanism. We know what kind of government these religious philosophies create. Europe is riddled with the product of these philosophies. Look what is happening in Canada. People are being fined and possibly thrown in jail for just saying they do not like homosexuality. These actions are closer to Maoist political courts than what our overwhelmingly protestant christian biblically literate founding fathers envisioned.
I am not talking about Huckabee style social conservatism. He has also bought into Marxist-socialism. I am talking about real social conservatism that limits government so men can be governed by their relationship with God.
Our society will be governed by a religious philosophy whether we like it or not. We all subscribe to one or another. The choice to you is which one will give you the most freedom to live your life as you see fit. I will leave it to you to choose, but history has proven that the fruit of protestant christianity has been the most successful at doing so. To supplant it with another, especially one we know leads to tyranny, is folly!
version of the Republican party, then they will go the way of the Whigs and No-Nothings. And from my point of view, good riddance.
I was pretty sure it was a matter of time before I got a response on that one. I believe the evidence is weighted against this philosophy. I also believe the naive acceptance of this philosophy by so many is a major reason we are fighting the marxist battles today.
Faith in biological evolution is a major pillar in the Marxist philosophy. You cannot separate evolutionary philosophy from Marxism without seriously weakening Marxism. It is not that evolution is built on Marxism, but Marxism is built on Evolution.
the Marxists. Where do I sign up for my hemp shirt with the pic of Che on it?
We're not going to argue evolution here. Or even evolution = Marxism.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
It's a pet peeve of mine as you can probably tell. I apologize for my role in the threadjacking.
1. I don't know who you responded to but this certainly doesn't address any point in the story or much anything else. I'm certainly the last guy to disavow the religious underpinnings of our system of government even if it is based on heresy.
2. Don't threadjack. The next time the word "evolution" appears on this thread I'll ban you regardless of whoever uses it.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
than Bush I or Dole. They both had nominations that were a given, whereas McCain had to work hard to get here, and he knows this is his only remaining shot at something he has wanted for a long time.