Posted on 01/23/2004 12:18:57 PM PST by NorCoGOP
OXFORD, Miss. -- For years now, Democrats born in traditionally Democratic states with strong Democratic leaders have begged for a candidate who could run for the presidency and win without scandal and baggage.
Bill Clinton was a great leader and a great president, but his personal life made America want a breath of fresh air in 2000. Not even the Boy Scout-like Al Gore could survive the backlash of the Clinton era. In one of the narrowest elections in history, the Democratic Party saw its best chance for lengthy control of the White House dissolve with a candidate who could not win his own state.
Fast forward to 2004, and we are a different nation. Before the Bush-Gore election, few people knew who Osama Bin Laden was. Even fewer knew the names of Saddam Hussein's sons. The economy was already in a recession but we didn't know, and the world was about to be rocked by the most deadly sneak attack North America had ever seen.
In these four years we have learned that most of the other nations of the world despise us for our prosperity and would like to take our way of life away from us. They blame our failing moral compass and use it to excuse their actions. The reality is that we do not teach children to become suicide bombers and we do not take it lightly that people live in poverty. They do. They claim they follow Allah, and Allah has pushed them to do these things. There may be some demon in hell named Allah that is pushing these leaders, but this is certainly not the same Allah my father-in-law worships.
We have learned that Islam has not attacked us. Evil men attacked us in the name of Islam, much like Christian radicals murder abortion doctors, but on a greater scale. President Bush has responded, not by attacking Islamic capitals like Mecca or Medina, but by cutting off supplies to al Qaeda and by removing Hussein from power. All leaders should have the clarity Bush possesses.
In these past few years, we have learned that economic boom is followed by economic downturn and then economic boom again. The Clinton presidency was the largest era of economic growth this nation has ever seen, largely due to the actions of President Reagan before him, but Clinton's genius was to not try to fix what was working and his "hands-off" strategy on the economy made him one of the most popular presidents of all time. It would stand to reason that eight to nine years of boom would be followed by eight to nine years of decline, but our economy is recovering, largely due to the tax cuts on all levels.
While some scream about the tax cuts on the highest levels, these people create jobs and industry. Freeing up money for them to create new wealth only helps in the end. If we tax the GNP at 20 percent rather than 25 percent and that results in the economy growing at a rate of 5 percent faster, it will only take 10 years for the economy to make up the tax loss at the lower rate, and from there on out the economy will produce more with a lower tax rate. Bush knows this as well. It is simple mathematics if we cut wasteful spending such as the National Endowment for the Arts and other mindless hobby-horses of ultra-liberal senators.
Finally, we have learned that we should know our allies and enemies. England, Spain and many others were willing to back us to force Hussein to follow through with his end of an agreement with the U.N. However, Germany, France, Russia and Canada refused. Canada would not be such a big deal except they are a neighboring nation, and Bush is wise enough to know we must maintain good relations with them. Germany and Russia have made it through unscathed. In fact, leaders of both of those nations are slowly coming around. France continues to have a problem with our foreign policy.
We have learned the power of the American economy to inflict retribution on an enemy. According to U.S. News and World Report, France has seen a 50 percent reduction in tourism. We have learned that as buyers and sellers in this economy, we can help our allies and retaliate against our enemies with our spending dollar.
So what does this have to do with the primary, you ask? Very little. Our nation is strong, our president is a man of value and leadership, and our direction is proper. I am a Democrat, but I will stand up and say I will be voting for President Bush on election day ... and you should, too.
completely false.
Can you support your claim with any facts or logic?
Nice Jesse Jackson like slogan. But, of course, completely false.
Can you support your claim with any facts or logic?
Of course. I'll use an extraordinarily simple example to show this. If you want an more complex example later feel free to request it. Read carefully, there will be an exam on it tomorrow.
Lets say that a voting district has 1000 registered voters in it. 494 are registered Democrat, 494 Republican, 6 Green Party, and 6 Libertarian. On election day 494 Democrats vote Extreme Liberal Democrat. The 6 Green party members split their vote and vote half Green, half Extreme Liberal Democrat. OK, now, the 494 Republicans vote for the Republican. Although, this Republican isn't perfect in the Libertarian's mind because she voted straight line conservative on all issues except legalizing pot. So, in a show of "I'm voting my conscience and this Republicrat isn't perfect" all 6 Libertarians vote for the Libertarian candidate (or write in Pat Buchanan, whichever) because the Republicrat betrayed them by wanting pot to stay illegal. The vote Totals are:
Extreme Liberal Democrat 497
Green 3
Libertarian 6
Republican 494
Well look!... The Libertarians, by getting their panties in a wad over the republican's one horrendous vote, went with their conscience and voted against electing a conservative republican. They voted for the person who got 0.6 percent of the vote. This gives the Extreme Liberal Democrat the WIN!!! Now, if 4 out of 6 of the Libertarians held their noses and voted for the conservative Republican, who by the way is horrible because she voted against making pot freely available, and legal, the Republican would have won.
This is how a vote for Mr/Mrs. 0.0001 percenter is a vote for the extreme liberal candidate. The Greens did it to Algore last election by not voting for him (if they would have went with Algore he would have won). The Libertarians almost succeeded in electing Algore by voting against Bush (if they would have gone with Bush their would have been no need for the court challenges because it wouldn't have been close enough to warrant them). Maybe this election the Libertarians will get a Kerry/Dean/Edwards win!
Again, this was a very simplified example but it can easily be expanded to cover millions of voters. And, it reflects reality.
The other option, which many refuse to take, is to work within the system. Vote for the candidate who has a chance of winning (0.0001 percent isn't a chance) then lobby them hard for your wishes. Or, keep screaming about your principals and continue to help liberals win.
She voted against expanding Medicare, the anti-First-Amendment McCain-Feingold bill, and loosening penalties for illegal immigration? Then she's got my vote!
Extreme Liberal Democrat 497
Green 3
Libertarian 6
Republican 494
One can just as well say the 494 elected the liberal by not voting Libertarian.
Once again, false statement. One can only say that if Libertarians were in the game. They are not.
For proof, please post the percentages, in presidential elections, that the Libertarian candidate has gotten over the party's lifetime.
So you claim---with no support in facts or logic.
LOL!!! You dismiss facts and logic by simply claiming that none was there. Go back and re-read my posts. I'm now starting to see into the Libertarian mind. Facts and logic don't matter, or don't exist, if they don't support the libertarian.
Please post logic and facts that show that Libertarians are competitively in the game to win the presidency.
And remember, based on your logic, that being that the candidate simply has to be on the ballot, Mickey Mouse and Bozo The Clown are just as much in the game as the Libertarian candidate because their names appear on the ballot by write-in votes.
I understand that you will vote for the looser candidate no matter what the results. SO. I'll stop here. Good luck to your 0.00001 percenter. Hopefully your vote won't be the one that elects the liberal democrat.
Straw man. Even if they're not "competitively in the game" by your definition, it remains true that "One can just as well say the 494 elected the liberal by not voting Libertarian," since it is obviously true that if the 494 had voted for the Libertarian he would have won.
Mickey Mouse and Bozo The Clown are just as much in the game as the Libertarian candidate because their names appear on the ballot by write-in votes.
False---a candidate must meet certain qualifications for write-in votes to be tallied (at least in Illinois).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.