On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 07:20:44 -0800, Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/05/2004 09:23 PM, Collins Richey wrote: > > An interesting little tidbit I heard on the radio today: Apparently > > millions of Iranis were dancing in the streets celebrating GWB's > > reelection. Now that would be a real coup if Iran were to shake off > > its radicalist government. > > Can you point me to an online report of that event? This is the first > i've heard of such a thing.
I can neither confirm nor deny. As I reported, this is total hearsay, and I can't remember where I heard it, or I would say so. I will do some digging when I can and report back. I don't seem to find anything with Google. > > > > > Another interesting post election quirk. When a Democrat is elected to > > the Presidency, there is seldom an outcry for healing and > > consideration of the other party and seldom a discussion of "mandate", > > but just let a Republican get in office and there is an immediate > > demand for the President to reach out to heal the divide and a > > question about his "mandate." As far as I'm concerned, the President > > (Democrat or Republican) has only one mandate: to implement his > > campaign pledges, and it looks like that's exactly what GWB intends to > > do. > > Yea, and that's exactly what those of us who voted against him fear the > most. And quite honestly i wasn't clear what Bush's campaign pledges > were until he gave the victory speech earlier this week. His victory speech and his first press conference were almost identical to every campaign speech - tort reform, social security improvements (not 100% clear what is involved other than the proposed new investment accounts), medicare improvements, success in Iraq (end goal an independant democratic Iraq), continued support in Afghanistan, appointment of judges who are strict constitutionalists without applying a litmus test to their personal and religious beliefs, tax law reform, etc. > > Much as I would like to see the bitter vitriolic die down, I doubt > > that it will happen. > > I'm hoping in about 4 years. I somehow doubt that. Unless the trends I've cited earlier are sidetracked by something new and major, the 2008 campaign will look just like the 2004 campaign. > > > > > > > It will be interesting to see what becomes of the Democratic Party in > > the next four years. We have witnessed two attempts in a row to sell > > an Eastern, ultra-liberal (bordering on European socialist), elitist > > product to the electorate, and in both cases the product failed to > > sell (leaving aside the Florida situation where no rational discussion > > is possible). In both cases, the people in the middle have sent > > increasing numbers of Republicans to the Legislature. When will the > > Democrats come up with candidates that have any consideration for the > > people in the middle? We have just witnessed the fact that billions of > > dollars and questionable support by major news media cannot sell "I > > hate GWB" to the people in the middle. The tired old Democratic > > rhetoric: GWB will ruin Grandma's social security, enslave the blacks, > > etc., etc. is just that: tired old rhetoric. > > To you, perhaps. Here's a fun nugget of data: > http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php > As I said, tired old rhetoric. The concept that spoiled votes and provisional ballots are all democratic and most especially black, hispanic, etc. and part of a campaign to discourage voters just won't sell. I realize that many like this author firmly believe that to be the case, but that doesn't make it true. I don't have great respect for Mr. Kerry, but I do respect him for not putting the country through another cycle of lawyers/courts deciding the election. > > > > I commend Zell Miller for his contributions to the campaign. He didn't > > support GWB because he is a Republican, but because he sincerely > > believes that the Democratic Party has abandoned the principles that > > once made it a great party. > > Ya know, Collins, I would have been truly awestruck if you didn't > commend the Emporer^H^H^Zell Miller. That guy fell off the truck a long > time ago. I could start espousing the principles of the Repbulican > party while calling myself a Democrat for the same effect. Lonni, you've missed the point. Zell espouses the principles of the Democratic Pary as practiced by Jack Kennedy and Harry Truman. He's not preaching to convert everyone to the Republican Party, but merely bemoaning the fact that the Democratic Party has moved along to a place he is not comfortable with. Maybe he fell off the truck, but he firmly believes that the truck is headed in the wrong direction. That's definitely not the same as saying that everyone should be on the Republican bandwagon. Zell believed that John Kerry was the wrong man, wrong time, wrong place as did may of us, but I don't hear him signing up to be a Republican. > > > > > > > Beginning in the 2000 election and continuing much stronger in the > > 2004 election, the internet has altered the political spectrum in > > favor of better and more instantaneous access to the news. Prior to > > the appearance of the political blogs, Dan Rather would have been able > > to sell his forged document to an unsuspecting public, and the > > distorted view of the problem of missing explosives at the weapons > > cache would have been taken at face value. > > > > Ahh, that felt good. End of ramblings. > > Glad you feel better. Karl Rove would be proud. > Maybe so. I'm not a Republican, but I find nothing wrong with a campaign manager who has managed to help position his guy for a win. I don't find fault with the Democratic campaign manager, either, only with his candidate. I just can't swallow the concept that Karl Rove is a creature of evil. I've voted for occasional Democratic candidates in the past, but I haven't found any in the past 8 years that I can support. Like Zell, I believe that the Democratic Pary is headed in the wrong direction. I didn't vote for Clinton, either, but even he seems rather moderate in comparison to the current crew. All we hear about any more are the raving lunatics (IMO) like Michael Moore who believe that we should turn our country over to an organization like the UN and convert ourselves to a European style socialist paradise. Where is the outcry from decent America loving Democrats who know that this is hogwash? "I hate Republicans" is not an adequate slogan for winning the hearts and minds of the middle Americans I have referred to previously. As long as that is the direction of the party, I have no real choice but to press the Republican buttons when I go to the voting booth. I could have had more respect for John Kerry if he had stood up for his principles. A man of principle would have done one of two things: apologize for his stand in years past or confirm his past choices. If I had heard something like I made a bad mistake when I turned my back on my fellow soldiers and when I voted down every major military support and weapons bill and I see now that we must have a strong military in these dangerous times, I would have had more respect for him. Or if he had said, I do not regret my choice to turn my back on my fellow soldiers (stopping the Vietnam war was far too important) and I do not believe that we need a strong military presence and I believe that it is essential that we have a more socialist America, I could respect (but not support) that position. The much touted candidate for 2008, of course, is Hillary Clinton who will be more of the same. The party hacks will love her, but I doubt that she will sell any better than Gore or Kerry in middle America. Later. -- /\/\ (CR) Collins Richey \/\/ "I hear you're single again." "Spouse 2.0 had fewer bugs than Spouse 1.0, but the maintenance ... was too much for my OS." - Glitch (tm) _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsub/Pause/Etc -> http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
