LazarusLong

Let me start with a simple statement: I am a Democrat. Always have been and always will be. This makes what follows much harder to say.

If you look at the last presidential election you have to ask , "How in the world did Bush win?" Consider the following:

1. The stock market was far below what it was when he took office.
2. Unemployment was almost double what it was in 2000
3. In his first four year tenure he turned a budget surplus into a huge
budget deficit with no end in sight.
4. We were in a war that should never have been started and it is clear
that the administration "cooked the books" to create a threat where
no threat existed.
5. Spending by the Republican controlled congress and the Republican
controlled white house had increased far faster and higher than it ever
did under the democrats
6. Passed tax cuts that almost exclusively benefited the richest Americans
and will be paid for by cutting spending for the poor and middle class
(read as cuts in social security, Medicare, veterans benefits, etc.)
7. Alienated almost every other country on the face of the earth to the
point that we are now hated by almost everyone (the return of the
ugly American)

I could go on and on but I think you get the idea. So what great accomplishment did Bush point to and say this is why you should give me another four years? The answer is none. You will note that all of the items listed above concern economic issues or foreign affairs. And these are the issues that Democrats hammered on and it got them nowhere. Voters were clearly concerned with other issues. (The strange workings of the electoral college helped also.)

What Bush brought to the table was one thing: RELIGION. With almost every preacher and catholic priest in the country telling people they will go to hell if they vote democrat it is not too hard to understand why people voted for Bush. After all, what is a few years of economic pain when balanced against eternity in hell. And it gets worse.

Consider this: In 1996 with the US economy humming like a fine machine, no wars, and everything looking good, Bill Clinton could not get 50% of the popular vote. The fact that Ross Periot ran and split the republican vote got Clinton elected in both 1992 and 1996. I can assure you that the republican party will take steps to insure that does not happen again. And here is the kicker: The great depression started in 1929. Hoover had four years to help ease some of the suffering that was going on in the country. He did nothing. When the 1932 election rolled around, yes Roosevelt won but Hoover still got almost 40% of the popular vote and if the south had voted in 1932 the way it now votes (IE republican)there is a good chance that Hoover could have won re election! Now, when the country can be in the financial trash can and people still vote for the party that put it there ( bear in mind that the republican party had complete control of the federal government for the 10 years leading up to the depression) then there are some things going on that we are not talking about. Those things are religion and race. I live in the south and don't kid yourself. The south votes republican on one issue above all others. Southerns believe that the republican party is anti minority and specifically anti black. Why so many people think God is a republican, I don't know. part of it is tied up with abortion but don't forget that this is the same party that gave us Prohibition.

This has not been lost on the republican party. When you look at the news, republicans are walking all over themselves to see who can kiss the collective butt of the religious right the most.

Where does this leave the Democrat party? The answer is simple, nowhere. The party would have to do a hundred eighty degree turn to woo the religious right to vote democrat. In short, become republican. This is not an answer and the republican party is wrong in their position. Freedom of religion should not mean freedom to be a Christian only, and if you are not a Christian we will force you, by law, to obey Christian tenets.

Bottom line: There is no set of economic conditions or world situation that will get someone whose main concern is religious or ethnic to vote democrat, the voting trends since the civil war prove that. (Wilson was also elected because Teddy Roosevelt split the republican vote) and there is nothing in the foreseeable future that is going to change the minds of the churches or the south. So get ready America-here comes the theocracy!

Final note: The south started down the road to being republican in 1964. The only states that Barry Goldwater carried was the deep south and that is because he was perceived as being anti civil rights. The final nails were put in place when Johnson pushed through the civil rights act of 1964

ludahai

The NYSE was at about 10,600 when Bush 43 took office. It was nearly 10,100 on the eve of the election in Nov. 2004. A loss of 500 points is not "far below"


Unemployment at the beginning of 2001 (just before Bush took office) was was about 4.2%. At the end of 2004, it was about 5.5% and on the way back down. That is NOT almost double. Also, as employment is a lagging indicator, the unemployment rate began increasing even as the economy had begun its slowdown at the end of the Clinton administration.

1. The bubble economy created during the Clinton years collapsed at the end of the CLinton administraion.

2. There is also a little war going on right now that Clinton refused to fight, the War On Terror.

That is a matter of debate. I believe that it was right to take Saddam out of Iraq. It was justified, both legally and morally. I know liberals have a hard time looking at the big picture or over the long term, but this WILL be beneficial for the region in the long term.

[quote] 5. Spending by the Republican controlled congress and the Republican
controlled white house had increased far faster and higher than it ever
did under the democrats -/quote]

Again, there is a war going on out there, a war Clinton and other liberals were afraid to fight, but was necessary.

The tax cuts benefited EVERYONE who pays income taxes!

Sounds like the Reagan years, but history has shown that Reagan was RIGHT! Even the Europeans admit that now!

__________________
Ludahai -魯大海
The Truth about the Chinese KMT, Taiwan's ruling party
KMT Terror Poster

ludahai

Hoover did nothing?

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was a plan to pump government funds into private business enterprises in an effort to stimulate the economy. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) provided loans to banks, railroads, insurance companies, building and loan associations and agricultural credit organizations. 1.2 BILLION dollars was spend in the first SIX months of operation!

The Relief and Reconstruction Act legislated funds for emergency relief. It granted TWO BILLION dollars to states and municipalities for the construction of public buildings, aid to agriculture, and emergency relief.

The Federal Home Loan Bank Act provided for the creation of home-loan banks around the country to make loans to mortgage-lending institutions.

As for Roosevelt, much of what he passed was ruled unconstitutional, and then he threatened to PACK THE SUPREME COURT because he disagreed with their decisions. The reality is that the United States didn't get out of the great depression until WORLD WAR II. IT was the WAR that got the U.S. out of the depression, NOT the New Deal!

stump

While I don't blame Hoover for the depression it is fairly accurate to say in general terms he did nothing. Obviously he did do some things but overall he did bloody little.

He honestly did not think the recession would be as big of a deal as it was. He thought recovery was imminent and doing anything drastic would be a bad course of action. Which it would have been had Hoover been correct.

When he finally realized he was wrong he did try to jumpstart the economy and you have to give him credit for throwing away his principles and doing what he could to help the American people. But unfortunately it was a case of too little too late. Hindsight is 20/20 and his foresight was horrible.

One thing he did do was sign the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act. Which only exaccerbated the situation.

Redcommie

Bush won, but he won by the smallest percentage of any incumbant president who won during wartime, and he only won by a few percentage points.

Plus, the main thing Bush did was that he made the entire election a two issue vote (as many right-wing politicians often do). He made it about Religion & War (man those come together so often).

Also, in almost all of the states that the Gay Marraige Ban bill came up, there was already a law banning gay marraige. What the bill did was motivate fundamentalist voters who wouldn't have voted anyway. By mobilizing the evangelical movement, the Republicans got a big monopoly on the christian vote.

One thing I always wondered about that though, W. is the only president to have a criminal record, and Laura is the only first lady to have ever killed someone (drunk driving incident). And yet christians rally around these people.

__________________
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world." - Che Guevera

flip2

Technically--Bush DWI was expunged from his record.
Laura was not found responsible. It was a freak accident, and no one was charged.

The great thing about religion is that it teaches us to repent and to forgive others.

Also, this is the first administration in which all four figure-heads (President, VP, First Lady, and the VP's wife) all have at least a Master's Degree. The only exception is Mrs. Lynne Cheney, who has a Ph.D.

Now, VP Richard Bruce Cheney is the one with the criminal record for DWIs. (I had to edit his first name because I saw **** in its place.)

But, there have been far worse "skeletons in the closet" for other presidents. One that comes to mind is Andrew Jackson, a democrat, who shot and killed someone on the roof of the White House. Oh, those crazy days when men settled arguments with swords and guns. But, I guess we can overlook that "little" incident, 'cuz Jackson was a democrat.

flip2

As ludahai pointed out, NASDAQ numbers started decreasing because the .com bubble busted during the last year of Clinton's presidency.

It was up to over 8%? WOW, I must have slept through all that! When Bush was re-elected, the unemployment rate was actually similar to the rate during Clinton's re-election in '96. It was touted then (in 1996) as quite remarkable and at its lowest.

9/11/2001 happened. Goverment was restructured and expanded to include the Department of Homeland Security, first proposed by Joe Lieberman. This was the largest restructuring and expansion of the federal government in over 60 years.

There has always been, and always will be, the "ugly American." We're the only remaining superpower, the most industrialized, and wealthiest. If we were the most hated, then I don't understand the millions of dollars in trade still being imported; the millions of tourists we receive in our borders every day; the hundreds of thousands of applications for visas and petitions filed every day; the highest respects our nation has from former Soviet Satellites in eastern Europe--unlike their western Europe counterparts--who are now democratic and appreciative of Ronald Reagan's visionary and bold stance against communism; the continued solidarity among Japanese, Filipino, South Korean, Vietnamese, and Taiwanese citizens; the single greatest contribution from a nation for the fight of AIDS in Africa, whose respect is reflected in the most humble and welcomed spirit for U.S. missionaries; as well as the thousands of illegal immigrants that rush into our border to find jobs. I guess we have alienated ourselves from the rest of the world. Our crazy and selfish acts should be stopped.

If you break down the numbers in the 2004 election, more than 3/4 of those who voted for Bush did so because they liked him; they knew where he stood; they trusted him. Compare that to those who voted for Kerry. Almost 2/3 of those who voted for the MA senator only voted for him because they loathed Bush. Kerry got a large number of votes because he carried the "I hate Bush" votes. He never really offered a true reason to vote for him. He was an alternative candidate, but not necessarily the better candidate. You cannot win elections by simply being the alternative. You win elections by being the better candidate as well. In terms of religion, Bush carried the Catholic vote (remember, Kerry is Catholic). Bush won the undecided vote (remember, historically, the challenger has always won the undecided vote). Bush won the independent vote (remember, historically, independent voters, just like the undecided voters, usually break for the challenger at the end of the election). Bush won the Hispanic vote in Florida. Bush increased his Hispanic vote nationally to within striking distance of the democrats. Had Bush visited California a little more, especially in southern California, along the coastal cities, he could have won CA. Bush increased his vote in the state in 2004 over 2000. If you take a look at how California counties and districts voted, you will see that Kerry carried the major metropolitan cities, thus taking him over the top in CA. But Bush won more than 90% of the counties and voting districts. That number is also reflective of all the counties in the United States.

Remember the Reagan tax cuts, whose effects were felt during the 1990s which stimulated the economic growth and surplus. Also remember, it was a Republican led Congress that helped sustain the short-term up-swing stock market by working with Bill Clinton and bringing him to the middle. Unfortunately, the trend of dot-com companies was just that--a trend. Never buy on a trend. They only die real quick.

If this is true, explain a democrat governor of Montana. Explain a democrat governor of Pennsylvania. Explain a democrat governor of Virginia, of South Carolina, of Arizona, of New Mexico, of Iowa.

Explain the senior senator of Florida, Bill Nelson, a democrat. Explain Evan Buyh of Indiana. Explain Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Harry Reid of Nevada. Bingaman of New Mexico.

These men and women represent states that Bush won or lost by close margins (PA). They didn't resort to religion to win voters who, in all probability, split their votes at the ballot.

I think if the democrat party first realizes that religious voters exist, that is a beginning. Once the democrat party stops ridiculing a voter who happens to be religious and takes their faith seriously, they can develop a clear and concise and winning strategy to woo voters who are religious to the democrat party.

But, if democrats as individuals and as a whole continue to make fun of those who pray to God, those voters will continue to be turned off and disgusted by your party, and the Republicans--politically savvy the GOP--will be there to pick them up.

You democrats could easily change your language about the war and poverty and smooth the message out to relate it to faith. If you get that down, then yes, the "religious vote" won't be so monolithic.

Look at Ken Mehlman, the GOP Chairman. He's learned from the 2004 election, and has started to network and campaign in the Latino and black communities to give them a choice, to let them know the Republican party is serious about their communities. Howard Dean and the dems can stand to learn from this genuine guy and start to seriously court the religious.

ShamMol

Yeah, let's not blame Laura...I like her...

Seriously, you bring up religion about forgiving, yet look at the Texas prisons. Is that an example of this forgiveness that is followed by Christians, including our president.

Oh, and Cheney failed out of Yale, you have to try to fail there, you can at least get Cs easily with the grade inflation. Scary taht he is considered by many the brains.

__________________

flip2

God gave us free will. Myself, I don't support the idea of using the death penalty. You're right, I don't think that's being so forgiving with all those executions. But, we all have free will. Doesn't justify it, but, well, uh...hey, look at the time.....

ShamMol

Im talking about the prison system itself, not the death penalty.