Changing my earlier prediction on Dem Candidate....

SheEagle,

Thanks. I'm sure that many of the "Bushies" are good people with good intentions. But I'm tired of seeing people repeatedly post things like "God has answered our prayers and given us a great man of God to be our leader", but then refuse to answer when challenged with evidence to the contrary. It is neither wise nor Christian to live a life like a fairy-tale, nor to make statements that one is unable or unwilling to back up, or else have the wisdom and humility to change ones mind, as you have done .

 

Are you sure about that? How would that be different from giving your coat to the thief that steals your cloak?

 

PA, I know what you mean, and I have posted along the same lines in the past on this very board. However, you are exaggerating when you say that the GOP has cleaned house in Washington DC. That remark is only true on paper. In reality, many Republicans vote with Democrats on big-spending. The margin of victory is too small to have a commanding majority such as the Democrats obtained in 1932, for example.

The Republicans have to clean their own house. It has often been a few Democrats who helped the GOP now and then to win things like the tax cuts.

It is wrong to call Bush more liberal than Clinton or Gore. Clinton is a European-educated and European-thinking socialist. Gore is an unclear liberal.

Bush is a moderate, somewhat like his high-achieving father, but without his father's commanding intellect. Bush chose not to fight on domestic issues. You and I, PA, disagree with him there and wish that he had spent some political capital on domestic issues. It is my personal opinion that he was totally concerned with the war and had to let the chips fall where they are now in order to save the country in the war.

Bush may be defeated in 2004. People are not loyal to party anymore but tend to split tickets with great sophistication.

At this time, we have an election for Mayor of Indianapolis. The incumbent Democrat Bart Peterson is a dirty campaigner and a Democrat without principles. However, the GOP may not win in spite of their plurality of registered voters because people will vote for an infamous name over a party label. Peterson's re-election should signal a continued decline in business investment in Indianapolis.

Remember, the common people are giddy.

 

In fairness, it should be noted that Hoosier observer Kin Hubbard has proven that every now and then an innocent man gets sent to the State Legislature.

 

Church Mouse Guy,

I think that your labels may be correct, but I still maintain that in practice W is more liberal than Clinton...judging by what he actually implements. And in the end that's all that really matters.

 

PA, Bush just let the Democrats have their way on pork because the liberal Republicans wanted some of that hog white meat too much. Wasn't it Nixon who was told by the Supreme Court that he had to spend what Congress told him to spend?

Back to the topic of the Democrat candidate for President, I think that it will be Gephardt because he is the least risky for the Democrats. The Democrats where I work never say who they are backing but constantly complain about Bush and the bad economy, especially here in Indianapolis. Also, many African-American Democrats here complain in public about the war against terror, but they never mention a candidate.

 

You are probably correct, She Eagle. However, I will stay with my theory that it will be Gephardt based upon his recent surge in Iowa. He has organized industrial labor behind him.

 

World Net Daily had an opinion poll today on the question of Hillary's plans. One of the choices given by them expressed my thoughts better than I could have said them myself by far:

"No, like all New Yorkers, she's more concerned about her home state"

 

church mouse guy,

The third parties are not attacking the Democrats, perhaps because they do not believe the Dems to be the true source of massive spending.

Bush has signed every spending measure that has become law. As President, he could have vetoed some spending. He has not done so and must accept responsibility for his failure to use his veto power to reduce spending. It seems he is more interested in federalizing tort law than in curbing spending.

The Republicans have majorities, albeit small, in both houses of Congress. The majority party has much greater power in the House than in the Senate. All these spending bills originated in the House, where one often doesn't even get to consider what the majority party does not want to have considered. Republicans must bear responsibility, alongside Democrats, for massive spending. They have the majority. Acting in concert, they could have reduced speding. They did not. They should be open to criticism for their failure to do so.

What the Republicans have done to the federal deficit is actually worse than what the Dems would have proposed. Massive tax cuts coupled with massive spending has exploded the deficit. And I, as a lifelong Republican and registered Republican, who never dreamed my party would be capable of such if it controlled both the Presidency and Congress by *any* margin, must accept my own culpability for placing these people in power and act in the national interest during the next election cycle.

Bush would do well to delegate his responsibilites for the war on terror to his many competent staff members, who include Colin Powell (an American hero whom no one would blame Bush for entrusting this responsibility to), Donald Rumsfeld (also someone most Americans trust), and others. To borrow a line from Clinton that may be one of the few truthful things the man ever said, "It's the economy, Stupid."

I am displeased with the way Bush is going on homosexual rights. I gave him a pass on several of the appointments, such as the fine arts appointment (where many homosexuals seem to excel...I know I'm stereotyping) and the AIDS appointment (where sensitivity to an issue which afflicts homosexuals disproportionately might justify the appointment)...but it's hard to give him a pass on most of the others.

I have yet to decide whether I'm voting for the Democrat or whether I will abstain. I think the latter. Not that my vote will matter. I'm in NC, and we after all have an electoral college system.

I wouldn't care to bet on who will be the Dem candidate to oppose Bush. The field is too open. And the short primary process makes it somewhat unpredictable. I think Hillary could have it for the asking, but I also think she would lose hands-down to Bush under any forseeable scenario.

CalvinG

 

A very thoughtful post, Calvin. My reply falls short.

The Democrats are the source of the spending because they are the majority party of the last seventy years and massive spending is their hallmark. They favor big government. The American people are now hooked on pork spending.

Bush could not have had a veto sustained. Bush tried to make a deal on education and the Senator from Chapasquiddick doublecrossed him. How do you make a Democrat keep his word?

It would be hard for any party to rule with such paper-thin majorities. Every party has its mavericks. As for tax cuts, Herbert Hoover tried to raise taxes during a depression. It won't work. Taxes should be reduced to ten percent on the middle class even if it means that able-bodied people have to go to work.

Bush is crazy to appoint gays and lesbians. They are 99 and 44/100s Democrat at all times. American arts are so poor quality because they are infested with gays who have no artistic sense. As for the aids office that you mention, Bush could have left it unfilled or found someone willing to make a sacrifice to take the job. Bush should consider that he does not have to play the game with the American left.

It is strange how Hillary commands the Democrat Party. They just do not have anyone. Perhaps you remember the iron triangle of the Democrats--the media, the educational system, and the governmental bureauracies. Democrat control of the iron triangle is so complete that it has shut off oxygen to those sectors and there is no thought or political personalities that can compete in those sectors. Big government is too expensive and too inefficient, don't you agree? The day of the Democrats may end in 2004. They are so tied to abortion that a new party may emerge or, more likely in my opinion, the Democrats will change their platform forever.

 

President Bush has many problems but the Democrats have nobody to run against Him. It appears in my opinion that Howard Dean will be the nominee and with all the problems in Iraq Bush has, I believe the 2004 election will be similar to Nixon vs. McGovern 1972, Reagan vs. Mondale 1984, a Republican Landslide for Bush.

The Democrats are a party that has been on the decline since the mid 90's and the GOP is getting stronger in the South. The Democrats shameless sabotage of Bush's judicial nominees is not good PR for them. The Democratic memo that sought to undercut Bush's war strategy in Iraq is very disturbing. I have and still will criticize the GOP. It has many problems in that it seems at times to have not held to principle. The Democratic party however has sold it's soul to the extremist left and really is the least diverse of any party. The 2004 election could cripple them for years as the South and Middle America look at the Democratic party as one that looks more socialist and out of touch.

 

Good points, Kiffin. If the Democrat Party continues to narrow its base by moving further left, then the more moderate liberals will migrate more and more to the Republican Party making that party take on an even more liberal hue.

And at some point, conservatives will surely realize that the Republican Party is no longer the party of Goldwater and Reagan. And if the Democrat Party has so marginalized itself, it could create a scenario where the conservatives break off from the GOP to another party where we limited, constitutional advocates could all meet up.

But, we have been here before as far as the demise of a major party. After the 1974 Republican debacle in the midterm elections because of Watergate, there was talk of the demise of the GOP - but it recovered and in just 2 years almost held onto the presidency(and perhaps would have except that Mr. Ford rhetorically freed Poland too soon).

Then in 1992 when Mr. Perot was at his zenith and Mr. Clinton was way down in the 20s percentage-wise in the polls, there was talk of the demise of the Democrat Party. Yet just a few months later, Mr. Clinton won.

What is the old saying? Something along the lines that one week is a lifetime in politics?

 

How true Ken. I know of Republicans who feel like they can no longer relate with the GOP and are giving serious looks to both the Libertarian and Constitution parties as alternatives to the GOP. They are looking for strict constructionist type party when it comes to interpreting the US Constitution and the the Libertarian party and Constitution party both fit that definition. The GOP should not be to comfortable. I believe Bush will probably win in 2004 ...but only because the Democratic party has went too far left. I think in the future that many Conservatives will become more disastified with the Republicans and realize that this is not the limited government, strict constructionist party they believe it to be.

 

I recently got a message that I believe helps explain how third parties can become more powerful,

An open letter to Libertarians

by Michael Gilson De Lemos

"In my opinion 10% of our core membership could be in public office at least. Some states are about there, such as New Hampshire, and that has changed their whole perspective. They did so by education and training, professional
approach, getting out there and attitude-continuous presentation of our ideas from banquet teams to town meetings to systematic literature drop-offs. They have a very high number of Libertarians in office ratio to population.

Now the Republican governor feels it is normal to speak at their convention---while the
Democratic Chair must respond by denouncing Libertarians as anarchists."



If parties like the Constitution Party and or Libertarian Party can win enough local races, win a few seats in Congress, then we can influence them as the New Hampshire Libertarian Party has the Republican Governor coming to their Convention .

 

That's what I am planning on doing. I may be bold in posting but I am quite shy in person. So I will probably be forced to go into my non-comfort zone during the coming election year.

CHARGE!!!!

 

Church Mouse Guy,

Your response was equally thoughtful.

I agree with you that the Democrats started runaway spending. But Republicans have continued it. What happened to the Balanced Budget Amendment? Remember when that was part of the Republican platform? I do. "My" party has changed.

I think Bush could have had his veto on any spending bill sustained. Because he only needs 1/3 plus 1 in EITHER the House OR the Senate to accomplish that. And although there are some "moderate" Republicans, I think you have at least a little over a third who are true conservatives. However, even if it would not have been sustained, wouldn't a real conservative owe it to the country to veto it anyway and let it become law over his objections? Sot that we can see plain as day who the big spenders are within Republican ranks?

I never suggested we needed a tax increase. Just that balancing the budget is more important to me than decreasing taxes for anyone. And that includes the middle class. If he can reduce spending enough to give a tax cut, that sounds great. But he hasn't.

We see eye to eye on the gay and lesbian appointments.

I sometimes see the Democrats not as a real, cohesive party but as an alliance of interests. "Affirmative action" folks. Anti-life, pro-"Choice" folks, labor unions, ACLU types, general leftists, extreme environmentalists.

I really wish we would adopt a parliamentary form of government here for at least one of our houses. Best would be the House of Representatives. That way, the voice of all Americans could be heard. And the Democrat's "alliance" could be fractured.

CalvinG

 

Bush might have used the veto if it had not been for the war. He is merely the son of a wise man and the war has consumed all of his attention.

Can the USA have both guns and butter? I do not think so. In World War II, they say the motto was: "Use it up, make it do, or do without!"

I should like to say to those who call for sacrifice in war that they should forego their dependence on government pork. It ain't that bad being as poor as a church mouse in the USA.