Lately, President Bush has announced and attempted to forward many liberal issues, in an apparant attempt to pull a Bill Clinton and sway/win Liberal voters to his side.

What I see him doing instead is pissing off his loyal support on the right (Excuse me Mr. Bush did you just say amnesty for illegal aliens?? Excuse me Mr. Bush did you just say federal prescription drug benefits?? WHAT PARTY ARE YOU AGAIN?) AND *NOT* picking up voters on the left who simply hate Bush.

He cannot win votes from people whose only concern in a candidate is someone who can beat Bush not if they are good candidates.

He cannot win votes from people who cannot get over "Selected not elected!" or "Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton!".

He cannot win votes from the vast majority of gays.

He cannot win votes from the vast majority of blacks/minorities.

The votes he HAS are the very sizable population of conservative supporters who want and are for traditional conservative values and ideals. They DON'T want large budget deficits, expanded government, legalized illegals, etc. About the only issue he hasn't folded on is gay marriage!

I think he has more votes to lose then to gain by attemping to pander to the left and it could cost him the election rather then winning it for him.

What do you all think?

P.S. I'm not intending this to be a slam on the values themselves, just Bush's apparant reversals obviously for the sake of trying to gain votes. (Which Bill Clinton did quite successfully during his second term re-election.)

Oh boy! The very first politcal discussion thread of John's forums!

The over/under for how many posts this takes to turn into a flame war is set at 8. Place your bets! :D

OK. I'm only going to say this one time, so please listen up.

If there is ANY flaming, rudeness and/or name calling in this thread or in any other threads that discuss political and/or religious issues, I will close them with no further discussion. I thought long and hard about banning all discussions on politics and religion here, and it won't take much for me to reconsider. I want this to remain a pleasant place, and these kinds of discussions almost always cause hard feelings. I don't want to see that happen, so please behave. Thanks.

Personally I won't be participating in any of these kinds of threads.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that no elected official should be able to run for two consecutive terms. Too often, the end of the first term is filled with the sort of actions that we see today. Combine that with strong campaign contribution laws and I think we would be more likely to see officials acting with their constituents in mind.

The Republican candidate from my state, who during the 'republican revolution' ousted a sitting speaker of the house (Tom Foley) campaigned on the promise of Term Limits.

Of course, as is to be expected, not only did those regulations not get pushed through, he has now became a career politician -- the very thing he campaigned against.

I was a liberal at the time of the Republican Revolution, now I am a conservative but I still can't stand this guy. Name is Nethercutt.

****

John, you are very wise from not participating in these discussions but I hope from the framing of my post you understand I intend an actual non-flame filled rational discussion and am not 'trolling'.

Full Disclaimer: I am a conservative, I'm black, I live in Spokane WA.

****

****

John, you are very wise from not participating in these discussions but I hope from the framing of my post you understand I intend an actual non-flame filled rational discussion and am not 'trolling'.

Full Disclaimer: I am a conservative, I'm black, I live in Spokane WA.

****
Absolutely, but you know what they say about good intentions ;)

For the record, I have no problem with your post in particular, nor do I have a problem with rational discourse on ANY subject; however, as we all know by now, political and religious debates staged on Internet forums almost always turn very ugly due to the intense feelings such discussions evoke. Still, if any group of people can buck that trend, it's the fine people who frequent this board.

He cannot win votes from...

Um, he didn't win votes the first time...

Okay, seriously - I believe he's got a stranglehold on a lot of votes.

With all the turmoil that's going on in the world, the majority of people (and I'm talking about those who are more concerned with Janet Jackson's recent scandal over the possibly illegal police action in Iraq), are going to go with the guy who looks the most confident. And the cowboy in the saddle has a definite edge over the cowboy who's looking at the horse...

People are scared, don't you think? we never had terror alerts before. We never had snipers, anthrax in our mail, or ricin in the senate before. We never had a spectacular terrorist attck before. This is the country where that stuff doesn't happen. But if you look at teh world, the sum total of what happened to us in the past decade is less than say, the sum total of a month of Sri Lanka.

And the president stands up confidently and in a cool steely voice tells our invisible enemies that he's going to kick them in the ass. That's got to give you an advantage over saying "I want to clear up this mess". It's also why professional wrestling is so popular.

Also, I think that alot of democratic votes will be wasted because people assume the issue is so clear that their vote isn't needed.

I wouldn't place a bet on the outcome of this one...

</rant>

I agree with you. Bush achieves popularity by being strong, in the saddle, having vision, doing what he says he will etc.

But all this backtracking and liberalizing of his policies makes him appear WEAK which works against him. Not to mention throwing even further out of whack an already whacked budget. He should stick to his guns!

-Allen

I am a Canadian

- I like to sit in my egloo after hunting polar bears and watch the pretty colours and fun exciting title sequences with wacky sound effects on "the CNN show"!

you Americans sure have some fun politics!

thank god for John Stewart on the daily show
- he explains it all to me everyday :p :tu:

is it still considered flaming if you aim it at an entire country? :claplow: :spaz: :jumping:

I am a Canadian

-
is it still considered flaming if you aim it at an entire country? :claplow: :spaz: :jumping:


Been done: "Blame Canada" :o

I think he has more votes to lose then to gain by attemping to pander to the left and it could cost him the election rather then winning it for him.

What do you all think?

And just who else are we (those on the right), going to vote for? Who exactly is Bush going to lose these votes to? Do you want Bush or a Democrat?

People are scared, don't you think? we never had terror alerts before. We never had snipers, anthrax in our mail, or ricin in the senate before. We never had a spectacular terrorist attck before. This is the country where that stuff doesn't happen.</rant>

True, true... BUT, consider that everything mentioned here happened after Bush became president. That's the part that really scares me about this guy (among other things).

I fully agree with the idea of eliminating 2 consecutive terms, as it often fans the flames of ugly politics (including the involvement of special interest groups & lobbyists). However, I think the real problem lies in our party system itself... people are too content to simply vote along party lines, without really researching the candidates and their stance on various issues. I have spoken with many people who said they would vote for candidate X, or candidate Y, that had no clue where they stood on key issues (even ones that would directly affect said friends). When I ask why they support that candidate, they simply reply that he/she is a Democrat, or a Republican, or Green, or whatever, and that is the group they feel can lead them the best (lead them like sheep, I say).

Of course, this kind of thinking will likely never change in my lifetime... fortunately I have seen many people get as disgusted as I am in the political system, and begin to think for themselves, and do research, and truly vote for the best PERSON. Anyway, that's my rant for this morning... hope I didn't offend anyone :-).



BTW: Is it just me, or are the most apathetic voters (or non-voters, for that matter) the ones who are first in line at the complaint department when the country isn't going their way? :confused: ;)

BTW: Is it just me, or are the most apathetic voters (or non-voters, for that matter) the ones who are first in line at the complaint department when the country isn't going their way?

Agreed..

However, I think the real problem lies in our party system itself... people are too content to simply vote along party lines, without really researching the candidates and their stance on various issues.

The reason we have "parties" is because most people have either a "right" or a "left" way of thinking... We join the party that falls along the same lines of thinking that we believe. If you vote your party, most of the time you are voting the same beliefs as your own. If you were take everyone for face value, you would be an "indy". ;)

I am going to get back to the "real" issues.... fitness! :bb: :db: