CONGRATULATIONS

[spursfan101]

To President Bush on his reelection and to his supporters on this board.

I sincerely hope that Bush makes an effort to bring back partisanship back to the Congress and back to this country, although I don't really foresee that happening.

And to the Demos:
1. Where was the black and youth vote???
2.  OHIO, look AROUND YOU! That state has been pummeled in the last 4 years, how you could go Republican is mindblowing.




 

[SPURSX3]

:cheers:  :cheers:  :cheers:  :cheers:
 B)  B)  B)  B)
 :cheers:  :cheers:  :cheers:  :cheers:



I think i read that only 10 percent of the youth vote actually voted....big problems for the demo's in the future - getting kids to register to vote is one thing - BUT ACTUALLY GETTING THEM TO THE POLLS IS ANOTHER.


you may actually see voting parties (like club type parties) next election to draw the youth in if they cast a ballot...

[spursfan101]

In 2000, youth vote was at 17%. In 2004, it was....17%!!

Guess we should ditch Springsteen and Neil Young, and go more with Maroon 5, Hillary Duff and SWITCHFOOT!  Instead of ROCKING THE VOTE, we need to POP the VOTE!

[SPURSX3]

In 2000, youth vote was at 17%. In 2004, it was....17%!!

Guess we should ditch Springsteen and Neil Young, and go more with Maroon 5, Hillary Duff and SWITCHFOOT!  Instead of ROCKING THE VOTE, we need to POP the VOTE!

my bad i think it was 10 percent of first time youth vote showed up...i thiink.

[rickortreat]

Even if the election turns out differently, the Republicans have won, because it shouldn't be anwhere near this close.  There were so many reasons to take issue with this Presidency, that any opponenent should have won, IMO.

If the President managed to get the majority of voters to vote for him, he deserves congratulations.

And the Democrats have to figure out how to win an election when the country is doing poorly as this one is.  We're not as good off as we were four years ago.  The Dems aren't going to get a shot if things get better!

To be honest, I'm very anxious about what is going to happen to our country over the next four years.  Regaurdless of who the President is, he's going to have to deal with a number of issues that should come to a head.

1.  The Balance of Trade deficit.  The US consumes much more than it produces, purchasing the excess on credit from overseas, where products can be made less expensively.  This cannot last, as eventually our creditors will not want to loan us more money.  

Solution:  Immediatly force all tradeing partners to allow their currencies to float without intervention, meaning that no country holds debt in another nation, and establish a currency system based on something tangible like gold.  In this way, the economic policies of a country will have a clear result, forceing each to regulate themselves in a way that really brings long-term prosperity to their people.

2.  Budget Deficit.  See above.  You don't get money for nothing, but you can earn your way out of debt.  That, and reduce spending to below your revenue.

3.  The Middle East.  We need a viable strategy to reduce our military expense and exposure in Iraq.  We need to deal with Iran and it's active nuclear program.  We also need to see some progress in Israel between them and the Palestinians, if Arafat dies, it may provide the opportunity for some more reasonable leaders to take his place.

4. North Korea.

5. Energy.  Oil is finite, and we're going to run out of it.  With oil at this price, the economy will slow down or stall anyway. If it remains near this level, (above 50) we're going to need massive investment in alternative energy, from building nuclear plants to producing bio-diesel.  (Fat chance of this happening with Bush in the White  House!)
   

[Joe Vancil]

Rickortreat,

I believe the way for the Democrats to win is to stop leaning so far to the left.  A moderate Democrat would have toppled Bush easily.

And in my opinion, a moderate Democrat would:

1) support the war in Iraq
2) be an avid participant in the "War on Terror"
3) take no stand on gay marriage/civil unions
4) be pro-education, making it one of the most critical issues
5) take no stand on issues such as prayer in schools, abortion, etc., but leave this issue to existing laws and the courts

If Iraq were a non-issue, homeland security were a non-issue, and the religious right weren't upset by stances 3 and 5, plus the rural areas energized by stance 4, you're looking at a blow-out.

However, Kerry is "pro-choice."  Kerry is seen as "pro gay marriage" although I believe his officially stated policy is that he's against it.  And his stand on Iraq is too reminiscent of his stand on Vietnam.

Think of it this way - you can't win on left-wing liberals alone, but you can win on the religious right.  If you offer some concessions to the religious right, you won't lose your left wing liberals.  And your left-wing liberals will have the ability to fight out their views in the courts.

The issue of gay marriage decided this election by bringing out the religious right.  
 

[ziggy]

To President Bush on his reelection and to his supporters on this board.

I sincerely hope that Bush makes an effort to bring back partisanship back to the Congress and back to this country, although I don't really foresee that happening.

And to the Demos:
1. Where was the black and youth vote???
2.  OHIO, look AROUND YOU! That state has been pummeled in the last 4 years, how you could go Republican is mindblowing.

SF101,
Thanks for being gracious, I know it was important to you.  I will do my best to be a gracious winner.

The results of this election confirmed my opinions of 2000, which I posted here.  The notion that Nader took the election from Gore is incorrect, because you can't look at  the results in a vacuum.  The only reason Gore won the popular vote in 2000 was because Nader was in the race.  Gore conceded the hard left to Nader,, and focused on teh "independent" middle.  In this race Nader was a non-entity, because Kerry campaigned very aggressively for the left wing base of the party, and took that away from Nader.  In the process though he lost a large swath of the moderate "independent" vote in the middle.  The result was a 4,000,000 vote swing in Bush's favor.

The Democrats need to acknowledge this if they ever intend on becoming the majority party again.  They have to walk away from the hard left, and develop policies and platforms that the middle can support.  They need to learn from the Tom Daschle defeat.  He is the party's majority leader in a conservative state, and yet lost.  Why?  Because he was seen as supporting the hard left, and not the middle.  The middle is 5 times larger than the hard left.  They can win without the hard left, but they will killed without the moderate middle.

[rickortreat]

Joe and Ziggy- great analysis, and the Dems would be smart to read what you both wrote over and over again.

They have conceeded too much of the middle to the Republicans, although I had though the real issues- economy, jobs, inflation etc. would have pushed the independents to the Dems.

The Dems are suppossed to be for the little guy, not just one of them, but all of them.  There's a lot of little guys and girls out there, and if they represented the common ground for all of them, they should be able to win every time.  It's just a matter of properly representing that common ground.  

[ziggy]

Joe and Ziggy- great analysis, and the Dems would be smart to read what you both wrote over and over again.

They have conceeded too much of the middle to the Republicans, although I had though the real issues- economy, jobs, inflation etc. would have pushed the independents to the Dems.

The Dems are suppossed to be for the little guy, not just one of them, but all of them.  There's a lot of little guys and girls out there, and if they represented the common ground for all of them, they should be able to win every time.  It's just a matter of properly representing that common ground.

Thanks Rick,
I really believe that if the Dems come up with some new policy proposals that put a demo twist on republican ideas they can make a lot of hay.

An example is the US Tax Code.  The class warfare stuff doesn't work, and the demands that rich pay more and more does not resonate with people.  I think if the Dems came out aggressively for a flater tax structure, but eliminated a lot of the deductions and shelters that only the wealthy can take advantage of they will get huge support.  I also don't believe that the majority of Americans want an estate tax, but they would be willing to tolerate one if it wasn't 55% of everything past $5,000,000.  I think if the rate was the capital gains rate, on everything over $10,000,000 or $20,000,000 then you would get overwhelming support.

I think if the Dems really took the lead on Social Security, and gave people the ability to have some control over the money and allowed people the opportunity to take some of their payroll taxes and could put it into a governments mandated retirement plan outside SS, they would gain a huge amount of support.

This is just 2 examples, but neither of these is that far removed from many of the basic ideals of many demos.  These are about making the lives of ordinary Americans better, which was a large part of the FDR demo's.  The Democratic party of today though has morphed into the party that protects the governments interests and not the people interests.

[spursfan101]

Republicans aren't willing to make concessions. As it is, we lost several people in the House this year thanks to Republican efforts to redistrict our state. Despite our demo's "holding their ground" by refusing to vote (and leaving the state), the Republican Governor (Rick Perry) held FIVE SPECIAL SESSIONS to ensure that it passed.

Republicans play some dirty ball, Demo's are way to nice. Nice to see Kerry dig at old GWB, really got under his skin, and made him lose some votes IMO.

[Joe Vancil]

Republicans aren't willing to make concessions.

You're right; they're not.  And because of that, the Democratic party, by making a few concessions, could garner a huge amount of the swing voters.

Consider this:  if the Republicans had presented a policy of more involvement of the UN, civil unions for gay couples although not marriage, improved funding for welfare and unemployment benefits, increased domestic spending, and increased gun control, this would have been a blow-out election in favor of Bush.

What the US needs is a party that agrees with the Republicans on most foreign policy issues, and with the Democrats on most social issues, with a huge sense of morality.  The economy needs a more central approach.  Take that party, put it up against both parties, and THAT would be the dominant party.

To win, you've got to capture the middle.  Extreme left and extreme right aren't going anywhere.  And there's more folks on the extreme right than on the extreme left.

 

[SPURSX3]

Republicans aren't willing to make concessions. As it is, we lost several people in the House this year thanks to Republican efforts to redistrict our state. Despite our demo's "holding their ground" by refusing to vote (and leaving the state), the Republican Governor (Rick Perry) held FIVE SPECIAL SESSIONS to ensure that it passed.

Republicans play some dirty ball, Demo's are way to nice. Nice to see Kerry dig at old GWB, really got under his skin, and made him lose some votes IMO.

so if congress wants to pass a law that the majority republicans want, the demo's should high tail it and run??


i know the republicans pushed hard for the redistricting, but you cant just up and LEAVE.

I dont have much respect for Perry Myself - but i also thought the Demo move in Texas made us look like Arses (all of texas).

[Joe???]

What the US needs is a party that agrees with the Republicans on most foreign policy issues, and with the Democrats on most social issues, with a huge sense of morality. The economy needs a more central approach. Take that party, put it up against both parties, and THAT would be the dominant party.

If you're a Christian, making a stand against gay marriage and/or civil unions and supporting the party which promotes life IS moral.

You're right; they're not. And because of that, the Democratic party, by making a few concessions, could garner a huge amount of the swing voters.

Wait a minute! In another thread you claimed Bush wasn't a strong leader. However, he refuses to waiver. Isn't that the definition of a strong leader? And he IS right more than he is wrong, since America selected him beyond a shadow of a doubt this time, so I don't want to hear the argument that you can be steadfast and wrong. The majority has chosen to support him, making him right.

I DO agree with you on one thing. This country needs a third party. Independents and moderates don't have a REAL choice. Kerry was so far left a lot of moderate Democrats couldn't vote for him. Truth is, Bush is more moderate than Kerry, which is why he got elected. True conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak take exception with Bush all the time, yet Kerry was WAY out there as his voting record showed.

I have to admit, my reasoning for wanting a third party is a bit selfish. I see my party leaning toward civil unions and abortion, and I don't want that. However, I'm much more comfortable with a moderate in office than some lefty liberal like Gore or Kerry. I believe liberals would be marginalized in a three party system and the country would run smoother, as probably about 70% of the population is toward the middle.

Finally, I believe there is room for morality and politics. This election showed that. It was a HUGE issue, since many of us want moderate or conservative supreme court justices versus activist liberals. The time has come for activist courts like the federal court in San Francisco and the court in Mass. which legalized gay marriage to start ruling on law vs. political influences.  

[spursfan101]

so if congress wants to pass a law that the majority republicans want, the demo's should high tail it and run??

I know the republicans pushed hard for the redistricting, but you cant just up and LEAVE.

I dont have much respect for Perry Myself - but i also thought the Demo move in Texas made us look like Arses (all of texas).

Gov. Perry had a gun to the demo's head, they had no choice. What he was doing was unethical, and IMO, unlawful. To purposely redistrict boundary lines just to get a majority is not what a democracy is about.  And that's my problem with THIS BATCH of Neocon Republicans.  These people are the true dividers of this country, this country better wake up and smell the coffee, and kick these bozo's out. I know most Texans will stand up against Perry.
 

[Joe Vancil]

If you're a Christian, making a stand against gay marriage and/or civil unions and supporting the party which promotes life IS moral.

I agree.  HOWEVER, I believe you could get even a good deal of the Bible Thumpers like me to agree to "civil unions" provided that they are distinct from marriage.  It allows the Christians to continue to preach that marriage is a sacred thing, while still allowing gays to have something similar.  These "civil unions" would have rights and privileges defined distinctly to them - not simply "inherit" the traditional advantages of marriages.  In this manner, you could get insurance companies, etc. on board.  In essence, you would no longer be single, married, widowed, or separated, but single, married, widowed, separated, civilly united, or civilly widowed.

Wait a minute! In another thread you claimed Bush wasn't a strong leader. However, he refuses to waiver. Isn't that the definition of a strong leader? And he IS right more than he is wrong, since America selected him beyond a shadow of a doubt this time, so I don't want to hear the argument that you can be steadfast and wrong. The majority has chosen to support him, making him right.

Refusing to waver isn't a single characteristic that makes someone a strong leader.  Bush has several characteristics of weak leaders;  he polarizes, he is unable to broker compromise while still remaining stedfast, he isn't articulate (eloquence, while not a requirement to be a strong leader, is almost always lacking in weak leaders), he's not well-connected with the concerns of women and minorities, he has some questionable incidents in his past (business failures, questionable alliances, possible shows of favoritism), and the mere sight of him alienates a significant number of folks.  That's NOT a strong leader.  Contrast that with Reagan - a strong leader - who was stedfast, yet able to compromize, a consensus-builder, articulate, popular, with a strong public presence - you WANTED to see Reagan.  "Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL."  Command presence, another thing that Bush lacks.

Also, mandate of the majority makes POLICY - not RIGHT.