PDA

View Full Version : "Old 'Snake Head' Carville 'Hisses' ."



megimoo
05-14-2009, 12:46 PM
Clinton adviser says Democrats will dominate for 40 years

WASHINGTON - The man who masterminded Bill Clinton’s first election victory in 1992, James Carville, has predicted that the Democratic Party will dominate American politics for the next four decades due to “seismic shifts” in demographic voting patterns.

snip

Carville said the party’s emphatic win last year demonstrated long lasting, built-in electoral advantages over the Republicans, who had made a huge mistake by retreating to their conservative base under George W Bush.

In a new book, “40 More Years - How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation”, he writes in typically barnstorming fashion: “Republicans shouldn’t be worried. They should be in agony. They should be throwing up. The Republican brand is the worst political party brand in history.”

“There have been long periods where one party generally has the upper hand. You never win every election - the Democrats won’t win every election - but for 40 years the underlying dynamics in demographics stay with them,” he told the Daily Telegraph.

From 1896 to 1932 there was just one Democratic president and from 1932 to 1968 just one moderate Republican, Eisenhower. Since 1968 the Republicans have generally held sway, exploiting the backlash to the liberal society.

snip

As an unashamedly partisan Democrat, Carville rejoices in Republican misfortune, but also claims that none of his high-powered Republican friends - Congressmen, pollsters and columnists - disagree with his hypothesis.
http://blog.taragana.com/n/clinton-adviser-says-democrats-will-dominate-for-40-years-62554/

Speedy
05-14-2009, 12:50 PM
I have a feeling that Pelosi, Reid and Obama in the news every day will scare the country into voting Republican in 2010.

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 01:09 PM
The pure numerical demographics agree with Carville, i.e., age, race, ethnicity demos all favor the Democrats. However, numbers cannot predict the real world actions of human players. It may be that the Republican party will wake up and start listening to the social moderation of the majority; it may be that the Democrats will overplay their hand and alienate the centrist majority in terms of taxes.

Such predictions are only useful for their shock value in selling books and boosting speaker fees. I remember some not-so-long-ago discussions of a "permanent Republican majority." That didn't work out all that well.

megimoo
05-14-2009, 01:19 PM
I have a feeling that Pelosi, Reid and Obama in the news every day will scare the country into voting Republican in 2010.
All of those liberals who lost retirement money in this Liberal controlled 'Free Homes for Sale' offered by the Fed to every unemployed and Federally supported welfare family in America are going to answer to someone.

Every former bigwig in Freddy or Fannie have left with millions and every one of they is a Liberal/Progressive and stealing Us/America blind.I would hope that all of those 'progressive' College graduates are able to 'figure it out' and watch the old news clips on Utube and follow the money trail to Barney Frank's And Chris Dodd's committee's.They both should be hung in chains along with the rest of Mindless,Thieving Liberal Clown Congress that are destroying America.

Lager
05-14-2009, 01:24 PM
It's hard to see how taxes could sink the democratic party. If we get to the point where a majority of the population pay no taxes, the few at the top getting soaked, won't be enough to mount any major offensive against them.

marinejcksn
05-14-2009, 01:28 PM
The pure numerical demographics agree with Carville, i.e., age, race, ethnicity demos all favor the Democrats. However, numbers cannot predict the real world actions of human players. It may be that the Republican party will wake up and start listening to the social moderation of the majority; it may be that the Democrats will overplay their hand and alienate the centrist majority in terms of taxes.

Such predictions are only useful for their shock value in selling books and boosting speaker fees. I remember some not-so-long-ago discussions of a "permanent Republican majority." That didn't work out all that well.

Sure didn't. This scares me a little bit, because I'm thinking that the R's may win some major battles in 2010 but people might be quick to put just anybody in the position (McCain, Snowe, various other turds) just to boot out the Democrat and more RINO's is sure as hell what this country doesn't need.

Aside for a few choice Republicans, a lot of the party is a big joke lately. And what's with the Democratic Party these days? The highest members among their ranks look like they escaped from a bad nursing home. Same old elections, same old Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. :D

megimoo
05-14-2009, 01:36 PM
It's hard to see how taxes could sink the democratic party. If we get to the point where a majority of the population pay no taxes, the few at the top getting soaked, won't be enough to mount any major offensive against them.
When it all 'grinds to a halt' due to loss of funds there will be a great hue and cry to confiscate and sell private property to fund the welfare masses.The problem is who will buy and what strings will be attached to the transactions.When the 'Bubble Bursts' there will be masses in the streets looking for blood,anyones in powers blood.He can't trust the local or Federal law enforcement types or the military .That's what the new ,more powerful ,ACORN security forces are for to controll the angry masses and the rest of America .He's all about taking America apart and rebuilding it to his vision of what she should be !

noonwitch
05-14-2009, 02:01 PM
If the economy is better in 2010 than in 2008, the dems will win. If the economy gets worse, the republicans will pick up seats.

lacarnut
05-14-2009, 02:08 PM
I have a feeling that Pelosi, Reid and Obama in the news every day will scare the country into voting Republican in 2010.

I hope you are right but I look for the full force of the O's socialistic policies and large taxes increases to not take effect till the 3rd and 4th year of his Admin. That's when people will wake up and realize that all these changes are not what we hoped for. I also believe, we will haven another terror attack because of the appearance that the O is a weakling and will not respond in a forthright manner. If Repub run conservative (not RINO's) candidates, they will have a chance to clean house and take back the Presidency and the Congress. We already tried that me too policies with McCain and lost. No more damn RINO's.

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 03:32 PM
If the economy is better in 2010 than in 2008, the dems will win. If the economy gets worse, the republicans will pick up seats.

Well, in 2010 in the Senate, there are currently 36 seats up for grab, 18 Ds, 18 Rs. Of the Rs, five incumbents are not running; of the Ds 3. If the economy is completely in the tubes, the Rs may pick up seats. However, to take control, they need to win pick up 10 seats in an even 18-18 matchup. Vince McMahon, where are you? :D

Odysseus
05-14-2009, 04:57 PM
The pure numerical demographics agree with Carville, i.e., age, race, ethnicity demos all favor the Democrats. However, numbers cannot predict the real world actions of human players. It may be that the Republican party will wake up and start listening to the social moderation of the majority; it may be that the Democrats will overplay their hand and alienate the centrist majority in terms of taxes.

Such predictions are only useful for their shock value in selling books and boosting speaker fees. I remember some not-so-long-ago discussions of a "permanent Republican majority." That didn't work out all that well.

This is what is called a non-sequitur. It does not follow that after a President who attempted to be kinder and gentler to the domestic opposition and declined to draw distinctions between the two parties (even as they flirted with treason to undermine the war on terror), and a congress that was constantly undermining him thanks to the RINO contingent, that what the Republican Party needs is more moderation, much less that the majority is socially moderate. Gay marriage has yet to pass on a single ballot initiative in any state. Abortion on demand, all the time, for any reason, is not moderate, but parental notification, providing medical care to a fetus delivered whole and viable during an abortion and restrictions on late term elective abortions consistently poll well ahead of the former position. Of the two candidates in the last presidential election, the American people were presented with promises of tax cuts for 95% of Americans from a Democrast vs. a Republican who claimed that he would have opposed extending the Bush tax cuts. Both claimed to oppose gay marriage. Obama categorically denied that he had voted for legislation that would deny medical care to a baby that survived an abortion. In short, Obama ran to the center, lying through his teeth throughout, while McCain ran on his much more centrist record and lost. OTOH, conservatives, social and fiscal, won handily in 1980 and 1994, and only lost when they demonstrated a failure of nerve in the face of Democratic obstruction.

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 05:06 PM
This is what is called a non-sequitur. It does not follow that after a President who attempted to be kinder and gentler to the domestic opposition and declined to draw distinctions between the two parties (even as they flirted with treason to undermine the war on terror), and a congress that was constantly undermining him thanks to the RINO contingent, that what the Republican Party needs is more moderation, much less that the majority is socially moderate. Gay marriage has yet to pass on a single ballot initiative in any state. Abortion on demand, all the time, for any reason, is not moderate, but parental notification, providing medical care to a fetus delivered whole and viable during an abortion and restrictions on late term elective abortions consistently poll well ahead of the former position. Of the two candidates in the last presidential election, the American people were presented with promises of tax cuts for 95% of Americans from a Democrast vs. a Republican who claimed that he would have opposed extending the Bush tax cuts. Both claimed to oppose gay marriage. Obama categorically denied that he had voted for legislation that would deny medical care to a baby that survived an abortion. In short, Obama ran to the center, lying through his teeth throughout, while McCain ran on his much more centrist record and lost. OTOH, conservatives, social and fiscal, won handily in 1980 and 1994, and only lost when they demonstrated a failure of nerve in the face of Democratic obstruction.

Go for it. Run an anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage conservative. And we'll see. :D

BadCat
05-14-2009, 05:20 PM
Go for it. Run an anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage conservative. And we'll see. :D

Running a candidate like that would be a nice change for the Republican party.

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 05:21 PM
Running a candidate like that would be a nice change for the Republican party.

Good. Do it! Let's see if they get 40%.

megimoo
05-14-2009, 05:40 PM
Running a candidate like that would be a nice change for the Republican party.We've had several of those in the past ,Even a few Democrats !

lacarnut
05-14-2009, 06:07 PM
Good. Do it! Let's see if they get 40%.

When Americans see their taxes go up and the economy in shambles (my prediction), Democrats and Independents that voted for Reagan will not give 2 shits about the social agenda. They will turn away from the Democrats. Carville is full of crap because no party has had a 40 year rule. Bottom line, the economy went south, the war lingered too long, Repubs grew the size of governtment and voters wanted change. Obama gave them hope so they voted for him. If that change turns into a bad dream, the Democrats will get soundly defeated. For example, if your Federal Income Taxes rise from 35% to 50% and he increases every thing under the sun, would you would still vote for him if he ran against a social consersative? If so, you need to get your head examined. The shit is getting ready to hit the fan; better start saving your coins while you can because inflation is coming our way.

Water Closet
05-14-2009, 06:17 PM
When Americans see their taxes go up and the economy in shambles (my prediction), Democrats and Independents that voted for Reagan will not give 2 shits about the social agenda. They will turn away from the Democrats. Carville is full of crap because no party has had a 40 year rule. Bottom line, the economy went south, the war lingered too long, Repubs grew the size of governtment and voters wanted change. Obama gave them hope so they voted for him. If that change turns into a bad dream, the Democrats will get soundly defeated. For example, if your Federal Income Taxes rise from 35% to 50% and he increases every thing under the sun, would you would still vote for him if he ran against a social consersative? If so, you need to get your head examined. The shit is getting ready to hit the fan; better start saving your coins while you can because inflation is coming our way.

This seems to be the constant theme here: God I hope Obama really, really screws up then "we" might have a chance of winning." Looking at the situation another way, perhaps the correct question might be "what can 'we' do to win." Looking at that question, where are the additional votes going to come from. As I noted above, the growing demographics are voting Democratic, while the shrinking demographics are voting Republican. So, is there any plan other than hoping Obama and the Ds give it away?

lacarnut
05-14-2009, 07:03 PM
This seems to be the constant theme here: God I hope Obama really, really screws up then "we" might have a chance of winning." Looking at the situation another way, perhaps the correct question might be "what can 'we' do to win." Looking at that question, where are the additional votes going to come from. As I noted above, the growing demographics are voting Democratic, while the shrinking demographics are voting Republican. So, is there any plan other than hoping Obama and the give it away?

Let me make it perfectly clear so even a liberal like you can understand. I don't think "I Know" that Obama is going to raise the shit out of EVERYONE's taxes to pay for all the new and existing programs. I don't want him to do that but he is hell bent on f. up the economy. At this point, the Democraps can pass just about any legislation. The Repubs have a little over a year to get their act together in the 2010 elections. Read my lips "it's the economy stupid." If it's in the crapper, Repubs will reverse their downward spiral. The plan will be lower taxes, lower taxes, less government. That's what turned it around for Reagan and that is what can turn it around for the Repubs.

At this jucture, the voters are giving Obummer the benefit of the doubt with the economy. A year or so from now,you and the Democraps will not be able to blame everything on the idiot child. That will only fly for so long. The O has to govern rather than remain in his campaign mode.

marinejcksn
05-14-2009, 08:25 PM
This seems to be the constant theme here: God I hope Obama really, really screws up then "we" might have a chance of winning."

The question isn't if, but when. I support Obama as my president, just as I would've supported McCain (even though both their policies suck). But what he's pushing wont work. It never has in the past. Since I started AA, I constantly hear people say that I can't keep drinking like I did and expect a different result, because that's a definition of insanity. If someone like me; just a high school educated Marine with a drinking problem can see that doing things that failed in the past generally leads to more failure, why can't our President?

lacarnut
05-15-2009, 12:34 AM
The question isn't if, but when. I support Obama as my president, just as I would've supported McCain (even though both their policies suck). But what he's pushing wont work. It never has in the past. Since I started AA, I constantly hear people say that I can't keep drinking like I did and expect a different result, because that's a definition of insanity. If someone like me; just a high school educated Marine with a drinking problem can see that doing things that failed in the past generally leads to more failure, why can't our President?

Keep up the good work of absitinence. After you get that monkey off your back, give up the cancer sticks.
It really is not that hard if you put your mind to it, and you will feel 100% better.

Rockntractor
05-15-2009, 12:50 AM
Keep up the good work of absitinence. After you get that monkey off your back, give up the cancer sticks.
It really is not that hard if you put your mind to it, and you will feel 100% better.
I quit everything in one day weed, tobacco, alcohol it was painful but I started them all at once. Jumped in then jumped out. It has been 16 years now.

Lager
05-15-2009, 01:38 AM
Go for it. Run an anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage conservative. And we'll see. :D

How did that "anti-immigration" get in there? Did you mean "anti- illegal immigration?

Lager
05-15-2009, 01:47 AM
The Repubs should do what CW implies, so that we can win. After all, that's what's more important, isn't it? The policies or governing philosophy aren't as important as having more candidates with R's by their names. Does it really matter if there are simply two parties with minor differences between them? Sort of like regular beer and light beer.

Odysseus
05-15-2009, 12:12 PM
Go for it. Run an anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage conservative. And we'll see. :D
Hmmm... Let's see... Obama ran as an anti-gay marriage moderate (there are no liberals, only moderates and rightwingers, according to our national media), and it seemed to help him. McCain was pro-illegal immigration (I know very few people in any party who oppose legal immigration, but that's part of the disingenuousness of the amnesty debate, since it's widely known that a majority of Americans including immigrants favor reductions in illegal immigration), and he lost. So those two positions don't really seem to resonate, now do they? As for Abortion, Reagan ran as a pro-lifer, as did both Bushes, and Clinton promised to make it "safe, legal and rare," which certainly implies at least some restrictions. But, okay, let's find a candidate whose positions are as follows:

Abortion: A state that has no regard for the lives of the most defenseless will have no regard for the lives and property of anyone. In addition, the federalization of the abortion issue creates precedents for expansion of federal authority into areas that it has no business in. Therefore, I will appoint judges who will follow the original intent of the Constitution and who will overturn Roe v. Wade, which will return the issue to the state legislatures and medical boards, where it belongs.
Immigration: As a descendent of immigrants, I would be truly ungrateful if I were to deny the benefits of our nation to those who seek to come here to enjoy the freedoms that we have been given at such great cost, and which we must continue to guard. However, if we are to remain free, we must make some hard decisions on immigration, identifying what we expect of immigrants, and what they can expect from America.

First, it is not too much to expect that immigrants will obey our laws and respect our institutions. Those immigrants who come here and seek to undermine either, through crime, indolence or as agents of hostile foreign entities, have no place in America. We can argue about the case of an otherwise law-abiding immigrant whose visa has expired but continues to work and build a life for himself and his family, but we should all agree that an immigrant who enters the country illegally and commits felonies here has no place in America and should be deported. This is already our law, and yet hundreds of cities and towns declare themselves "sanctuary" cities, making it illegal for their police to inform ICE when they have taken an illegal into custody on a felony warrant. That is madness.

Similarly, those immigrants who enter illegally and then become a burden, taking benefits paid for by American citizens, driving up the cost of health care, education and all of the other services which citizens expect in return for their taxes have no business here, literally. Again, one can argue the value added by laborers who support themselves and their families and are not a burden, but those who demand all and return nothing have no place here. Finally, I speak of those who take up the causes of our enemies, who belong to front organizations from which they raise funds for, or make apologies for, terrorists, have no place here. As we have seen in the case of the Holy Land Fund, violent extremist groups have used such organizations to infiltrate the United States and act as agents for these groups. They disseminate hate, finance murder, recruit terrorists and use their positions to crush dissent within the communities that they claim to represent, ultimately doing their worst to destroy our Constitutional order. There is no place here for them. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

In return, legal immigrants can expect what our ancestors received. They will be free, they will have the opportunity to build new lives and to provide for their children in the safety of a free society. They will not have to live in fear of their government, nor will they have to kowtow to it. We will assist in those things that help them to become Americans, including a solid foundation in English language in the public schools, which will ensure that their children will be able to function and prosper in America. We will protect their rights as Americans, and we will ensure that they exercise the obligations that come with those rights.
Gay Marriage: When our current president said, and I quote, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,” I believe that he articulated a position which is compatible with the laws and traditions of the United States. When he told Rick Warren, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman." and “For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. You know, God is in the mix.” and that "[he is] not someone who supports same-sex marriage but [does] believe in civil unions,” he expressed the position of the vast majority of Americans, a position that does not radically redefine one of the most basic institutions in our nation.



Running a candidate like that would be a nice change for the Republican party.
There's the speech. Find me a candidate to say it and let's see what happens.

Good. Do it! Let's see if they get 40%.
Reagan got over 60%, Nixon got 72%, Bush 41 swamped Dukakis and Bush 43 beat Kerry handily. True, Bush 41 lost reelection, but in the words of James Carville, it was "the economy, stupid." As for Bush 43 and Gore, for an incumbent vice president running during a time of economic growth and budget surpluses as well as an absence of major global conflicts and to still barely eke out 50.0001% of the vote, well, that tells me that the American people weren't that impressed with his being pro-choice, pro-immigration (and let's face it, was there ever a candidate who was better at raising campaign funds from illegal immigrations sources than Gore?) and pro-gay.

The question isn't if, but when. I support Obama as my president, just as I would've supported McCain (even though both their policies suck). But what he's pushing wont work. It never has in the past. Since I started AA, I constantly hear people say that I can't keep drinking like I did and expect a different result, because that's a definition of insanity. If someone like me; just a high school educated Marine with a drinking problem can see that doing things that failed in the past generally leads to more failure, why can't our President?
He's not a Marine. :D

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 02:08 PM
...
There's the speech. Find me a candidate to say it and let's see what happens.
...

Aren't those Dead Fred's and The Gnewt's positions? Run one, or better, both on the same ticket. Or maybe Dead Fred and the new abstinence-only Grandmother from Alaska. Go for it,. please! And it will be the end of this crap for decades.

marinejcksn
05-15-2009, 02:27 PM
Aren't those Dead Fred's and The Gnewt's positions? Run one, or better, both on the same ticket. Or maybe Dead Fred and the new abstinence-only Grandmother from Alaska. Go for it,. please! And it will be the end of this crap for decades.

If the Elephants want to win in 2012, here's the platform they should follow:

1. Cutting Federal Spending on all fronts not essential to the Nation. Pledge to veto any legislation regarding Future bailouts of ANY industry; Chapter 11 is there for a reason and American taxpayers should never be on the hook for the poor actions of private companies.

2. Leaving Abortion to the States rather then the Feds, run a candidate who supports a woman's right to choose but opposes Partial Birth and vows to cut all Federal spending for Abortions. The Federal Government should not be subsidizing something like Abortion.

3. Lowering taxes by at least 10% on EVERYTHING (personal income tax, estate tax, Capital Gains, Corporate tax, etc.)

4. Allowing states on the Southern border to begin construction on the wall from day 1.

5. Establish Medical Savings Accounts, deregulate the Health Care Industry and Remove barriers to safe, affordable medicine.

6. End Welfare, both private and Corporate. Begin a tax credit on a dollar-for-dollar basis for contributions to private charities and reform Education through school vouchers and increased Parental choice.

7. Begin to privatize Social Security. Allow younger Generations to begin opting out of the program and planning for our own retirement rather then continue to prop up a failed ponzi scheme.

8. Make a SERIOUS effort to break our dependence on foreign oil, by cutting Corporate taxes on private energy companies on a dollar-for-dollar basis for every cent they spend researching alternative fuels. At the same time, allow for clean Nuclear plants to be constructed, reduce restrictions on Coal and Coal to Oil creation, open ANWR and Continental Shelf areas to drilling and elliminate CAFE standards on vehicles built in the US.

Odysseus
05-15-2009, 05:21 PM
Aren't those Dead Fred's and The Gnewt's positions? Run one, or better, both on the same ticket. Or maybe Dead Fred and the new abstinence-only Grandmother from Alaska. Go for it,. please! And it will be the end of this crap for decades.
Or the beginning of eight years of competent leadership. Not that it matters. Newt won't run for anything, having had his fill of Washington, and Fred has shown a singular lack of interest in running for it. Palin has better chops than you give her credit for, and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. But, here's the funny thing: Back during the primaries, I was a Giuliani supporter. I know that he's pro-choice and gay rights, but he's pro-choice the way that most sane people are, which is that while he doesn't want it banned in all cases, he believes that it is none of the government's business, and he would kick it back to the states. On gay rights, he is of the opinion that all citizens have the same rights and he opposes singling any group out for special privileges (and, BTW, gays do have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, they can marry any person of the opposite sex above the age of consent who will have them). I also recall that mine was a singularly lonely position here, and given your libertarian leanings, I'd have thought that Rudy would have been a lock for you. But, since he wasn't, I'm curious: Who was your first choice for the nomination in 2008?

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 05:29 PM
Or the beginning of eight years of competent leadership. Not that it matters. Newt won't run for anything, having had his fill of Washington, and Fred has shown a singular lack of interest in running for it. Palin has better chops than you give her credit for, and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. But, here's the funny thing: Back during the primaries, I was a Giuliani supporter. I know that he's pro-choice and gay rights, but he's pro-choice the way that most sane people are, which is that while he doesn't want it banned in all cases, he believes that it is none of the government's business, and he would kick it back to the states. On gay rights, he is of the opinion that all citizens have the same rights and he opposes singling any group out for special privileges (and, BTW, gays do have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, they can marry any person of the opposite sex above the age of consent who will have them). I also recall that mine was a singularly lonely position here, and given your libertarian leanings, I'd have thought that Rudy would have been a lock for you. But, since he wasn't, I'm curious: Who was your first choice for the nomination in 2008?

The same as you, Rudy, of course, for all the reasons you've noted. However, he wasn't a particular favorite on this board.

BadCat
05-15-2009, 05:35 PM
The same as you, Rudy, of course, for all the reasons you've noted. However, he wasn't a particular favorite on this board.

Well, this is supposedly a Conservative board, would you expect something different?

marinejcksn
05-15-2009, 05:36 PM
The same as you, Rudy, of course, for all the reasons you've noted. However, he wasn't a particular favorite on this board.

I always loved Rudy. He was my choice after Fred dropped and Duncan Hunter stalled.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 05:37 PM
Well, this is supposedly a Conservative board, would you expect something different?

Don't know. Are Odysseus and Marinejcksn liberals as well?

BadCat
05-15-2009, 05:43 PM
Don't know. Are Odysseus and Marinejcksn liberals as well?

Not from what I've seen of their posts.
You have to remember, we had shit to pick from in terms of candidates. It was "who sucks less" for all the candidates the R's had up.

Water Closet
05-15-2009, 05:46 PM
Not from what I've seen of their posts.
You have to remember, we had shit to pick from in terms of candidates. It was "who sucks less" for all the candidates the R's had up.

I didn't get the impression from either one of their posts that they only supported Rudy because everyone else was "shit."

lacarnut
05-15-2009, 05:56 PM
. I also recall that mine was a singularly lonely position here, and given your libertarian leanings, I'd have thought that Rudy would have been a lock for you. But, since he wasn't, I'm curious: Who was your first choice for the nomination in 2008?

As a right winger, I would have voted for Rudy because it was oblivious to me that Obama would be a disaster. As much as it pains me, I would vote for another RINO rather than a socialist and tax raiser like the O.

CW was for McCain before he was against him which happened when Palin was picked. Him along with Rockefeller Repubs went bat shit crazy and decided not to support McCain. Very narrow minded in my opinion because the few ounces of conservative principals in their blood have now been shit canned. Him and his ilk can kiss lower taxes and less protection from terrorism goodbye. More government intervention is on its way in a grand scale. Obama is going to make FDR & LBJ look like pikers.

BadCat
05-15-2009, 06:05 PM
Even worse, Hussien is going to make Carter look like a GREAT president.

marinejcksn
05-15-2009, 06:07 PM
Don't know. Are Odysseus and Marinejcksn liberals as well?

I'm a liberal in the classical definition of the word...does that count? :p

Odysseus
05-15-2009, 07:03 PM
Don't know. Are Odysseus and Marinejcksn liberals as well?
You wanna say that out in the parking lot, Pilgrim? :mad:
I'm originally from NYC, and I saw how liberals governed, and nothing about Giuliani's record was liberal. The most critically conservative thing about Rudy Giuliani is that, whatever his personal feelings on an issue, he follows the law as written and intended. As a result, he governs as conservatively as Reagan did. Examples: He is the only mayor of NYC that I know of who actually cut taxes and spending. Not slowed the rate of growth, but actually made cuts. He reduced the welfare roles from over a million to under six-hundred-thousand. He reinvigorated the NYPD and backed them up as he unleashed them on criminals, but he also had zero tolerance for corruption or lawlessness on the force. He presided over the first decline in abortions in NYC since Roe v. Wade. He supported freedom of association when the Ancient Order of Hibernians were under attack by gay activists to be featured in the Saint Patrick's Day Parade. He opposed government funding of garbage masquerading as art (without actually resorting to censorship, as his detractors claimed). He refused money from a Saudi prince after 9/11 after that prince made derogatory remarks about the United States and he told Yassir Arafat that while he may have the run of the UN, he didn't have the run of Lincoln Center and terrorists were not welcome. He actually enforced standards of public conduct on the homeless and other nuisances and got rid of the squeegee pests who extorted change in return for smearing dirt on car windows. He confronted unions that were strangling the city's economy and forced them to do the jobs that they were paid to do instead of what they felt like doing. And he did all of this with an overwelmingly Democratic city council that made the current congress look like the Roman senate under Cato the Elder. Anyone who saw his speech at the Republican National Convention can attest to his patriotism and his ability to articulate it.

I'm a liberal in the classical definition of the word...does that count? :p
Nope. When classical liberals were liberals, today's liberals would have been calling themselves progressives, socialists, Marxists or anarchists (and, prior to WWII, fascists). When those terms became toxic, they started calling themselves "liberals in a hurry" and then just liberals, and the classical liberals had to choose between that and calling themselves conservatives, which had a very different meaning, since there was no real conservative party in America as we understand the term, and especially as the term was understood in Britain. The British Conservative Party was actually the Tory Party, a monarchist party that opposed the Whigs, which were more reform-minded. The Whigs party supported the Protestant succession and were supported by the nouveau riche industrial interests of the early industrial revolution, while the Tories supported the Stuart claims and drew support from the landed interests and the British Crown. Essentially, it was a conflict between absolute monarchists (Tories) and constitutional monarchists (Whigs). When Robert Peel proposed conserving what worked and reforming what didn't, the term "conservative" was coined. That's a very different political landscape than existed in the United States, where the entire spectrum was pretty much classically liberal and the big debate was between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, who eventually became the Democrats. The Federalists eventually were replaced by the American Whigs, whose lack of a position on slavery ended up relegating them to third party status after the founding of the abolitionist radical party known as the Republicans.

Rockntractor
05-15-2009, 07:26 PM
I liked Rudy to. I just wish he would have taken his campaigning a little more seriously.