It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

page: 41
15
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
when I watched the Bush speech, I was immediately remidned of President Nixon's "Vietnamization" speech in which he made certain assurances which sound...familiar...even today.




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
when I watched the Bush speech, I was immediately reminded of President Nixon's "Vietnamization" speech in which he made certain assurances which sound...familiar...even today.



Yes J/O, I saw or heard those references, too. I guess the answer is “NO” to the question will we ever learn?



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I was not alivce during Vietnam, could you guys (justin/don) help point out some of the poin ts that are corrisponding between the two speachs?



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 


TKainZero I was not alivce during Vietnam, could you guys (justin/don) help point out some of the poin ts that are corrisponding between the two speachs?


During World War 2 the French surrendered to the Germans in 1940. The Germans set up a puppet government in France at Vichy and it was called the “Vichy French.” The Vichy government “gave” Indo-China - which was the colonial name for Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia - to the Japanese to administer. The OSS - predecessor to the CIA - told Ho Chi Minh if he would run a guerilla war against the Japanese, the US would see that Vietnam was given its independence after the War. Ho agreed and did what he promised keeping 3 Japanese divisions busy and not fighting us. A Far East Yugoslavia.

The Cold War came along just after WW2 ended. The US did not want to lose France to the USSR Communists. We reneged on our bargain with Ho and let the French re-take Indo-China. The Vietnamese defeated the French Foreign Legion at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. At a Peace Conference in Geneva in 1956, it was agreed to divide Vietnam into a pro communist north and an anti communist south for 2 years then to hold a unifying election for the whole country to see who would run the country.

The US realized Ho would win the election set for 1958, so it recommended (secretly) to the South Vietnamese that they not participate in the election. Pres. Eisenhower sent in a MAAG unit. Military Advisory and Assistance Group. Things never went well and the number of US soldiers grew and grew until in 1968, we had 550,000 men in Vietnam.

Pres. Johnson had promised Americans VICTORY in Vietnam but on the 1968 New Years Day in Vietnam, call TET, the end of January, the communists attacked over 30 places at one time including Saigon and Hue, the ancient capital. Although we ultimately won the Tet Offensive and ended by killing about 10 to 1, the psychological impact both at home and in Vietnam spelled the end to America’s involvement in Vietnam. Pres. Johnson was a broken man and did not run again. VP Humphrey ran in his place against a resurgent Richard Nixon. Nixon and his advisor, Henry Kissinger, implicitly promised to end the war if elected.

Nixon won a very close race. Most Americans thought Nixon meant to end the war in a few months, say by July, 1969. Instead of ending the war Nixon and Kissinger prolonged the war 6 more years. Our last fighting man was out in 1974. Then Congress cut off funding! 22,000 men went KIA under Nixon and Kissinger.

In 1975 after Nixon was forced to resign, Pres. Ford watched as the US fled from the rooftop of the Saigon embassy. The war was finally over. We got nothing in 1975 we could not have had in 1969. All those men died in vain. Died for Nixon's legacy. And Kissinger's. The Vietnamese call it the “10,000 Days War of Independence.” 1945-1975. The American public had been lied to by Kennedy, by Johnson, by Nixon and by Kissinger. All following a mistake first made by Truman in 1949 and then by Eisenhower in 1954.

The Vietnamese were NOT Soviet controlled international communists, they were NATIONALISTS first who were communist second.

VIETNAM'S LESSON? You cannot kill an idea with a bullet.


Post Script: Does History Repeat Itself? Henry Kissinger was Nixon’s National Security Advisor who ended as Secretary of State. Condoleezza Rice was Bush43's National Security Advisor who ended as Secretary of State. It looks like she will witness the same failed policy as Kissinger. 2 of a kind.

[edit on 9/19/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

VIETNAM'S LESSON? You cannot kill an idea with a bullet.



The other Lessons are you cannot win a defensive war, and you cannot occupy unless you are willing to go to the lengths of Stalin or Hitler and kill millions to completely control the population.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Xtrozero The other Lessons are you cannot win a defensive war, and you cannot occupy unless you are willing to go to the lengths of Stalin or Hitler and kill millions to completely control the population.

Correct. We watched that in the 20th century when Stalin consolidated his power after chasing Trotsky out of the country. We saw it repeated when Mao Zedong defeated the Nationalists in 1949 and millions of small property holders were murdered to collectivize the farms. Hitler most certainly “completely controlled” the German people but not by killing fellow Christian Germans. The largest group of Jewish people who make up the 6 million Holocaust victims were Polish.

We have not learned our war lessons well. WW2 is the source of much pride in America and rightfully so. But it was primarily a 'regime change' war in its motivation. For the most part even the German people, the Italian people and Japan’s people were all subjugated people to regimes that were more criminal than political.

After WW2, a great wave of Nationalism swept the world. Germany had lost its African colonies in 1918, but Belgium, Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom began to lose their colonies in Africa shortly after VE Day*. May 7, 1945. France held on longest, finally giving up Algeria after setting some very bad examples. Torture I’m thinking of. The Dutch and English lost their colonies in the Far East. Again, France was last to be tossed out by the natives. And America took up the French cause because we had adopted the Domino Theory to explain the relentless spread of communism. We had to stop it! We thought we had a good potential ally in the south of Vietnam, but we were mistaken.

Reinforcing our own ‘Domino Theory’ was the Korean War. 1950-53. It was a new kind of war for Americans. We fought it under the United Nations Charter. The Security Council had authorized the US and others to expel the North Koreans from the south, and to reestablish the 38th parallel border ‘status quo ante.’ As it was before. This was hard for Americans to grasp and in fact, many people do not grasp it today. MacArthur did not grasp it and he was fired by Truman.

Then came Vietnam. The Red Army had already imposed Communist governments in all of Eastern Europe. The Soviets had fomented civil war in Greece, sponsored revolutionaries in Africa and the Far East, agitated in Central America, had blockaded Berlin for 15 months and had taken the last free country in eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia by a coup d’etat.

To many Americans, the domino theory looked good. Nowadays it is said to have been a misreading of history and a lack of understanding of the strong drive for colonies to be free of their masters. Hmm?

*Victory in Europe. Followed by VJ Day, September 2, 1945, Victory over Japan and also the END of WW2's fighting.

[edit on 9/20/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Super Duper Tuesday is just too far away. A lot can happen in five months so I think most Americans are waiting till January before making any final decisions.

Rudy, a many with 2 failed marriages with a wife with two failed marriages. Whose only claim to fame is the handling of 9/11 which many are now saying wasn't all that good because the fire departments could have been far more ready even with the previous experience of previous attacks.

The man who certainly knew of the CERTS (civilian emergency response teams) which are plenty in new york and has never bothered to implement them, and inform the fire departments of their existence.

Where the fire fighters say that if they had access to CERTS, many more lives could have been saved. 9/11 operators could have called them into play to rescue people who could not be reached because rescue workers were already tied up with dozens of other emergencies.

Where the rescue workers had outdated and faulty equipment, hindering rescue efforts.
And now people are comding up sick from the debris and dust from working for months in coal mine like conditions without proper protection and safe measures taken.

Newt: God I hope not. The same man who venousmously pursued the impeachment of president Clinton for lying about having sex in the white house, who came out recently and claimed that he was having his own affair at the time. Funny how it was barely a blip in the news.
Yea, what a stellar person.Who made a complete mockery of our judicial system. to recently make even a bigger mockery of it. Though I do like his one idea for work visas for immigrants wehre

Hillary I like because I think she has the personality to take on tough problems like Iraq. But is yet still concerned enough to take on problems at home and focus on them like the healthcare crisis. She is the one to first come out and say that the Iraqi leaders need to stop being so comfortable being protected by the American military and for them to start taking matters into their own hands. The downside for me is that she is religious and has made some goofy religious statements lately.

Edwards I like too. But I don't know if he has the gumption to handle Iraq.

Obama isn't bad either. I like his wife even more. And she seems to be more realistically in touch with the day to day living of Americans then most others.

This election is going to be unpresidented.

There are no incumbants of any kind. The internet is playing a huge role like never before. And their spouses are making much bigger statements have a much bigger invovelment then any time in history. We are electing the pair now instead of the just the campaigner.

McCain: there are parts of mcCain that I like and others that I don't. I lived in AZ for a couple of years and if the state of affairs there is any indication, I don't think he can handle the presidency. He needs to fix his state first.There are HUGE environmental discrepencies going on. It is developing at an unprecendented rate, leaving whole areas without police and fire coverage. Crime is rampant.And education is awful.
Even though he is too close to Bush for a lot of people's comfort. What I really liked about him is that during the last election, he supported the republicans naturally. But he served with Kerry in Vietnam. He also did a stint with Kerry in the 80s where they went back to Vietnam and personally searched for any POWs. So when the bush campaign went to attack Kerry's service record, he stepped in and said "no way" Which tells me he supports an agenda but when that agenda is punching below the belt, he will stand up for what is right.

Because there are no incumbants, the situation here at home is messy, and the issues are really big and heated, this election could go ANYWHERE. So it is so hard to predict right now.

This is going to be very interesting.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Nixie_nox welcome to the thread.
Nixie_nox what do you think of Fred Thompson ?
While I don't like to comment to much about candidates who have yet to enter the race I have compared Newt to Nixon in the past on AP. Assuming that I am wrong about Newt being another Nixon assuming that he was to win the election things might not be to bad if he faced a demcratic controlled Congress. Having said that I think that the Dems will win the White house in 08.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Nixie_nox Hillary I like because I think she has the personality to take on problems at home and focus on them like the healthcare crisis. The downside for me is that she is religious and has made some goofy religious statements lately. Obama isn't bad either.

N/N, you’re the first person I know to accuse Hillary of being TOO religious. Iowa may be more religious than New York. I suspect her recent statements are more intended to allay concerns of the religious right than to evangelize the population. Every vote counts. 94% of Americans believe in GOD and 86% believe in life after death. You cannot ignore that.

Because African Americans still vote about 85-90% for the Dems and have done so since JFK and LBJ, and Obama has raised more money than Hillary, and he is articulate, progressive, and I think he wants the job, I expect we will see what I earlier predicted we would not see. A woman and a black on the same ticket. TWO firsts for American politics. The Dems cannot turn their backs on the ONE group that has backed them through thick and thin, knowing full well the Republicans would get back at them at every opportunity. If Hillary wins the nomination, she will at the least have to offer him the VP slot publicly if she means to keep the blacks onboard.

Nixie_nox Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it. When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."-BF

The first half of the quote I can accept as legitimate. As to the second half, I have strong reservations. There are several websites that create and attribute quotes to every well known personality. I have heard this for many year. But sometimes quotes are just TOO convenient. In the context of 1787, I do not see BF making such a remark. It was not the kind of issue that confronted the people in that era. BF would have to have been prescient. I’d say the second half is of a GOP anti-Roosevelt era origin.

Xpert11 Nixie_nox what do you think of Fred Thompson ? I think that the Dems will win the White house in 08.

I’m not N/N, but here’s what I think about Fred T. He hopes he can awe the audience like Reagan did. 4 or 5 catchy redneck type quips and a broad smile and he is Home Free! Fred cut no wide swath in the Senate and I’d expect no more of him on the presidential trail. For any actor on the national scene, this is the best publicity he can get and if he spends no more than $10 m. he’ll get it back in spades in higher ratings and concomitant percentages. For Fred, it is a win-win case.

Knocking Nixon. Actually Nixon was a good president, BUT FOR his prolonging the Vietnam on advice of that evil self indulgent Henry Kissinger - 22,000 dead Americans, 700,000 dead Vietnamese - and for his penchant to commit common crimes out of the Oval Office. In all other aspects, he was ABOVE average. IMO.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
I’m not N/N, but here’s what I think about Fred T. He hopes he can awe the audience like Reagan did. 4 or 5 catchy redneck type quips and a broad smile and he is Home Free! Fred cut no wide swath in the Senate and I’d expect no more of him on the presidential trail


Like him or not Reagan was one of a kind there will never be another Reagan. IMO there is nothing wrong with being inspired by someone like Reagan but it would be unwise to attempted to emulate what Reagan achieved because of the differnt circumstances and as I have said Reagan was unique.

: Awaits Don anti Reagan Rant :



Knocking Nixon. Actually Nixon was a good president, BUT FOR his prolonging the Vietnam on advice of that evil self indulgent Henry Kissinger - 22,000 dead Americans, 700,000 dead Vietnamese - and for his penchant to commit common crimes out of the Oval Office. In all other aspects, he was ABOVE average. IMO.


If you subscribe to that logic you could say that expect for Iraq , the CIA leak case and doing nothing to confront his own party spending habits Bush has been a good president.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Nixon presidency. 1969-1974.
Foreign policy was marked by detente (a peaceful pause) with the Soviet Union - later rejected by Reagan - and restoring diplomatic relations with China that had ended in 1949.

Nixon was first to index (COLA) Social Security payments to inflation, ending the often overly long wait for Congress to raise payments. Nixon signed into law the SSI Program. SSI - Security Supplemental Income - not related to Social Security - was the first Federal uniform welfare program. Before SSI the 50 states had widely varying programs that paid a lot in NYC, for example $400, and a little in Mississippi, only $20 a month. Impoverished southern blacks were moving Northward to get a living welfare payment. SSI sets a nationwide floor but also reflects the cost of living in rich and urban versus poor and rural states.

For better or worse, Nixon disconcerted for all time gold from the dollar. The dollar floats. Bretton Woods. He signed into law the EPA - Environmental Protection Agency - and the OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Agency. Under Nixon, the Philadelphia Plan - first Federal Affirmative Action plan - was implemented. Nixon’s racial policy was dubbed, “benign neglect” which was an improvement over prior Republican policies. He said "I am convinced that while legal segregation is totally wrong, forced integration of housing or education is just as wrong.” That was his "Southern Strategy.” This policy led to Reagan’s welcoming the Boll Weevils into the GOP ranks. Boll Weevils being conservative Democrats in the South who were really ideological Republicans and usually voted with the GOP. Under Reagan, they “crossed over.”

Worth it or worthless, Nixon was first to have daily White House press briefings by his spokesman. On account of OPEC's Yom Kippur War pricing policies, an unpopular but considered necessary step Nixon signed a law setting 55 mph as the national speed limit. Intended to reduce oil consumption, pure serendipity lowered the nation’s highway death toll 20%, saving 10,000 lives a year.

Other accomplishments in the Nixon presidency were the combining of several weather related agencies into NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. AmTrak for passenger rail service. Benjamin Franklin’s Post Office was abolished and the new USPS - United State Postal Service - replaced it. Formerly a sinecure for political hacks, it is now based on merit and performance. 700,000 employees. Nixon signed the NASA Shuttle program into law.

Nixon entered into the ABM - Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - with the USSR recently abrogated by Bush43. He began the SALT 1 - Strategic Arms Limitation Talks - which along with SALT 2, reduced the US atom bomb arsenal from 38,000 nuclear bombs to about 15,000. Note: Altogether the US has manufactured 70,000 nuclear weaoons. 1945-2001.

Nixon resigned, on August 9, 1974. One year, 6 months and 19 days into his second term. Just over 2 years after the burglars were caught at the June 17, 1972 Watergate complex.

[edit on 9/22/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



Don W Actually Nixon was a good president, BUT FOR his prolonging the Vietnam War and for his penchant to commit common crimes out of the Oval Office. In all other aspects, he was ABOVE average. IMO.

xpert11 If you subscribe to that logic you could say that expect for Iraq , the CIA leak case and doing nothing to confront his own party spending habits Bush has been a good president.


There is proof positive that Pres. Nixon himself through Presidential Assistant James Dean ordered the “Plumbers” ad hoc group under G. Gordon Liddy, to break into the Democratic Party’s National Headquarters office of Party Chairman Larry O’Brien located in the upscale Watergate office complex. The abiding question is WHY?

In 1972, Nixon and Agnew were running for re-election on the GOP ticket. South Dakota’s Senator George McGovern and Ted Kennedy’s brother-in-law Sargent Shriver - head of the Peace Corps - were running on the Dems side. Neither man was as well known as Nixon and Agnew. Early polls had put McGovern at 41%, but towards the end of the campaign, he had slipped badly, to 24%. It was inconceivable that Nixon would lose this race. So WHY Watergate?

Nixon never said and he may have been the only person who really know why he did it. I have a theory. Nixon lost to Jack Kennedy in 1960. It was only the second time a Catholic had run for the presidency. Al Smith in 1928 had lost to Herbert Hoover. Religion had been used against Smith. It just wasn’t “natural” for America to have a Catholic president, or so thought Nixon. He was irrationally angry at the American voters for not choosing him, a good Protestant boy. Nixon made a promise to himself: He would do what no other person after George Washington had ever done - he would win every state in the Electoral College!

To accomplish this very difficult task, Nixon needed to know everything O’Brien knew. Nixon needed to know the Dems strongest areas, where they expected to gain the most votes. He needed to what O’Brien planned to do in those states where the race would be close. In snort, Nixon wanted to know whatever O’Brien knew.

How to do that? How to know what O’Brien knew, and as quickly as he new it? What better way than to monitor Larry O’Brien’s telephone calls. Most of O'Briens's information would come to him by top level party officials calling him to report and to consult and to plan. If Nixon knew what O’Brien knew and when he knew it, then Nixon could take full advantage of that and work towards his goal of not just winning BIG but by winning ALL.

And that my friends, is my explanation for Watergate.


Note: Despite Nixon’s big win, the Dems kept control of Congress.

[edit on 9/22/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   
I've been speculating, for a long list of reasons, that it's not a question of the Republicans losing in '08. The only 'real' question is how badly do they lose?

I'm not trhilled about seeing my preferred political party go through the meat grinder. Their mistakes are legion, and they need some time in the wilderness to clear their collective heads and get back on track.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I've been speculating, for a long list of reasons, that it's not a question of the Republicans losing in '08. The only 'real' question is how badly do they lose?


Well if the analyse on this thread is correct the answer is a landslide.


I'm not trhilled about seeing my preferred political party go through the meat grinder. Their mistakes are legion, and they need some time in the wilderness to clear their collective heads and get back on track.


When Ike lead the Republicans out of the wildness I wonder if the youngest voters were even alive when Herbert Hoover lost his re election bid to FDR ?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   

posted by xpert11

posted by Justin Oldham
It's not a question of the Republicans losing in '08. The only 'real' question is how badly do they lose?


Well if the analysis on this thread is correct the answer is a landslide.


Their mistakes are legion, and they need some time in the wilderness to clear their collective heads and get back on track.


When Ike lead the Republicans out of the wilderness I wonder if the youngest voters were even alive when Herbert Hoover lost his re election bid to FDR ?


Hmm. Q. How many? 1932. Hoover v. Roosevelt. 1952. Stevenson v. Eisenhower. 21 was the voting age in 1952. Answer: A few would have been alive in 1932 and just 1 year old then. See 26th Amendment adopted in 1971 lowering the voting age to 18.

Landslide? Well, let’s see how many recent landslides I’ve lived through. My memory starts with 1964, Barry Goldwater lost to LBJ in a landslide. It is hard to say if LBJ benefitted from a sympathy vote for JFK as Camelot was taken from us. The Vietnam War was not an issue in ‘64. But civil rights were about to burst on the national scene.

Already there had been organized resistance to the mandates of Brown v. Topeka (1954) in most of the Deep South and the Border states. DE, MD, KY and MO. Alabama’s George Wallace ran for president as an avowed segregationist. “White flight!” In my hometown of Louisville, Ky, the rich whites moved east to Oldham County and the poor whites moved south to Bullitt County.

Many “Christian” church related schools were set up in Louisville and its Jefferson County. Some survive to this day. But LBJ soft-pedaled his plans on race which if known to the voters would have turned the ‘64 election into a real tight race! Racism is alive and well in the Good Ole US of A. Keep in mind the ‘06 Tennessee election. For some reason it is ONLY the GOP that uses race baiting as an electoral tactic. Republicans remain just a whisper away from racism. Why is that? Worse, Americans don’t seem to object. WHY is that?

The next landslide was 1972. Nixon won that against McGovern. The War was the issue there but the voters were flummoxed. They had narrowly voted for Nixon in ‘68 mostly on his promise to end the War. Which he did not. Now he was running again in ‘72 on the same promise. To end the War. I really don’t understand why Nixon got the overwhelming vote he did. Maybe J/O can add some light to this mystery?

The next landslide was in 1984, when Reagan sought his second term. The public loved Reagan. Granada had fallen to superior US forces just the year before. 30 KIA but all killed by “friendly fire.” Regan was never a deep thinker, but he was not dumb either. He was mostly handsome and glib. I accuse Reagan of knowing only 3 things without a cue card. 1) The rich should not pay taxes, 2) the USSR was the evil empire and 3) Star Wars will save America.

I credit Reagan with putting the selfish ME ONLY philosophy into 2nd gear. Ike put it in 1st gear, and the 2 Bushes have put it into top 4th gear. Reagan almost got the FLAT tax in his first tax cut, but when that produced too little revenue even he had to consent to raising the tax rates. The Dems ran Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter’s vice president and Geraldine Ferraro, a NY Congresswoman for VP. Another Dem FIRST.

What’s it take for a LANDSLIDE in ‘08? About 55% of the voters in the case of a GOP landside or 60% to get a Dem landslide. The difference is due to gerrymandering as in Texas’ own Tom DeLay. I pointed out on another thread how the GOP has gerrymandered Florida. 28 seats in the US House. The GOP holds 18 to the Dems 8. Yet Dems have out registered the GOP and in the last statewide election, the Dems lost by 500,000 votes out of 6 million votes cast. That undemocratic and genuinely harmful outcome is the result of drawing House district lines by computer and satellite, house by house. These outomes give the lie to one man one vote claims. We’re too sophisticated for our own good.

I do not see a landslide in ‘08. But that does not keep me from wishing!

[edit on 9/24/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Well assuming that the Christian right stays away from the polls and voters continue to show there disdain for the Iraq War how can the election be anything other then a landslide ?
I think that Rudy overplayed his hand in terms of his leadership on 9-11. Bush played the 9-11 card in 2004 so I don't reckon that it is available anymore either that or its effect has been greatly reduced. Voters have moved onto other issues.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I'm not forecsting any land-slide victories. I do think that the electorate is still divided. Some reaces will be hotly contested. In her case, I epxect the Republicans to be strident in their declaration that Hillary has no mandate. I think her win will be credible, but just not 'decisive' in a way tha she could use as a mandate. Most of the Republicans who lose in the House and the Senate will do so by narrow margins.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Errata from prior post. Florida has 25 House seats, the GOP holds 17 and the Dems hold 8.



posted by Justin Oldham
I'm not forecasting any land-slide victories. I do think that the electorate is still divided. Some races will be hotly contested. In her case, I expect the Republicans to be strident in their declaration that Hillary has no mandate. I think her win will be credible, but just not 'decisive' in a y that she could use as a mandate. Most of the Republicans who lose in the House and the Senate will do so by narrow margins.


OK, let’s look back. The 2000 election saw 49 million votes for both the GOP and Dems. 3 million for Green. The 2004 election saw 50 million for Dems, 53 million for GOP and scratch the Greens. So in raw numbers it looks as if 3,000,000 voters can SWING at the polls if not in the bedroom.

In ‘00 the race was decided in Florida by 541 votes out of 6 million cast. In ‘04 the race was decided in Ohio by 118,000 votes out of 5.6 million cast. To bolster J/O’s view the ‘08 race will be fairly close, it does look to come down to the “swinging” 3 million, about 2.9% of the electorate. Many voters who “swung” to the Dems in ‘06 will be disappointed by the failure of Congress to stop the war however unrealistic (and uninformed) that expectation was. Education does count, and we’re faced with an electorate that is poorly educated in basic civics. Too bad. As we Dems say, the GOP has successfully implemented its education policy, “ALL Children Left Behind.”

Offsetting voter disillusion will be the NOVELTY effect on the part of the Dems. If the ticket is the one I foresee, Hillary and Barack, and the GOP is the one I foresee, Rudy and Mit, then I believe the Dems will carry the day PROVIDED WHOLESALE PEACE does not break out in Iraq or Gosh! the Middle East. On that improbable event, the race looks more like a re-run of ‘00 than it would of ‘04. Or so I would hope.

[edit on 9/25/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Unless the Republican Party loses in a landslide will they go back to the drawing board ?
It seems to be a stupid question at first given how the Republican Party is currently imploding but as the Iraq war as shown it is always easier to bury your head in the sand. But sooner or later you have to come back to reality.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Unless the Republican Party loses in a landslide will they go back to the drawing board ?
It seems to be a stupid question at first given how the Republican Party is currently imploding but as the Iraq war as shown it is always easier to bury your head in the sand. But sooner or later you have to come back to reality.


Don and I have kicked that question around before. I don't think the Dems will win in '08 by a landslide. I do think they'll win "convincingly." A lot of moderate Republicans are ready to punish the GOP by sending them in to the Wilderness, deliberately.

My own Senior Senator, Ted Stevens, is about to see the plans for his carefully crafted dynasty go down the tubes. I expect him to win by the skin of his teeth, but he will be succeeded by a Democrat. There is one man that he can lose to, and that would be Mark Begich, son of the late Senator John Begich. Mark is an ambitious man who is ready to sacrifice anyone or break any rule to achieve what he feels is his due, which would be that Senate seat. Yes, he is a Democrat.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join