Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrat majority died from old, Vietnam-era wounds
St Paul Pioneer (de)Press ^ | 11/20/02 | D.J. TICE

Posted on 11/20/2002 7:13:27 AM PST by Valin

Democrats are having an awful time making peace with Republican victories in the recent election. A few rich and famous revolutionaries, like Bill Moyers and Garrison Keillor, are throwing embarrassing tantrums, proclaiming the fanatic's eternal faith that everyone who disagrees with him is evil.

Meanwhile, liberals with better manners and more stable brain chemistry are nonetheless genuinely dismayed. They're perplexed about what has gone wrong with the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. The answer — however unwelcome — seems rather simple.

The radical counterculture liberalism of the 1960s has finally completed its demolition of the New Deal Democrat majority — a task begun more than three decades ago. We have here one of those historical trends that is impossible to miss once you step back far enough to see the long-term pattern. Go back 70 years, to the last definitive realignment of American politics, in the depths of the Depression in 1932. In the nine presidential elections beginning with that watershed, Democrats won the White House seven times — losing it only to the Dwight Eisenhower, the likable war hero of the century. During the same 36 years, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in all but two sessions.

It was an awesome domination of national political life, built on a philosophy that won the hearts of ordinary working Americans. That philosophy centered on protecting the rights of the laboring class and restraining big business excesses; establishing a social safety net to prevent destitution among those who could not support themselves; and pursuing a strong, assertive foreign policy to protect American interests and the security of the free world.

This Democratic dynasty's problems began in 1968, with the election of Republican Richard Nixon (neither a war hero nor especially likable) at the height of the Vietnam War and the '60s social turmoil. In the nine presidential cycles since 1968, Republicans have won the White House six times, nearly matching the Democrats' earlier dominance. Only gradually has the GOP been able to seize control of Congress as well. But its advantage there now begins to look solid. It's a striking reversal of historic fortunes that Democrats need to study.

A closer look points to the one issue that is proving deadly for Democrats. In the period since 1968 (discounting the 1976 post-Watergate election), Democrats' presidential successes came recently — with Bill Clinton in '92 and '96. Al Gore also ran very well in 2000, winning the popular vote. Then things fell apart again this year. What might this reveal? While not ignoring the powerful personal appeal of Clinton, there is a more important common characteristic about the elections from 1992 to 2000, when Democrat presidential candidates did well. Those elections came between the end of the Cold War and Sept. 11, 2001 — a period when issues of national security, for the first time in memory, were not preoccupying Americans' minds. In this month's election — the first since national security came back as a critical concern — Americans turned decisively back toward the GOP and George W. Bush.

Democrats must fearlessly consider the implication of this pattern. Whatever other problems they face, it simply seems that too many ordinary Americans lack confidence that modern liberals will boldly defend the nation and its interests. It's a long-term problem, born with the anti-Vietnam War movement's declaration that America was the villain in Southeast Asia and continuing today in suggestions among progressives that America's enemies have legitimate reasons to hate us. It's not a problem old-style liberals like Truman or Kennedy had.

Those who honestly believe America should restrain its use of military might will, of course, have go on expressing those convictions and fighting for those policies. But as a political matter, Democrats may continue to have trouble winning national elections so long as voters have doubts about their willingness to confront the nation's foes.

There are, of course, a dozen other issues on which Democrats are hobbled by the '60s mindset, which hasn't digested a really new idea since the Beatles broke up. The basic malady may be the pseudo-religious, political fundamentalism of many Woodstock-era faithful, which produces (now as decades ago) a breathtaking self-righteousness and a stunning lack of self-awareness.

But conservatives are not as overjoyed these days as liberals are overwrought. Anyhow, they shouldn't be. One of Democrats' problems winning elections just now is that liberalism has already delivered on many of its historic promises, while '60s values are triumphant in the culture, if not in national politics. The era of big government is not "over" — it is apparently here to stay, with Republicans in charge. So, it seems, is a looseness about sexual mores and pornography and family ties that would have amazed (and displeased) liberals of the Democrats' glory days.

Strangely, perhaps, the pacifist, anti-war sentiment that was the heart and soul of the '60s is the one legacy of that era Democrats need most to discard to win more elections.

Write Tice at dtice@pioneerpress.com. or at the Pioneer Press, 345 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55101.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 11/20/2002 7:13:27 AM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Valin
Where have all the liberals gone, long time passing?
Where have all the liberals gone, long time ago?
Where have all the liberals gone?
Gone to graveyards, everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
2 posted on 11/20/2002 7:19:54 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
I really get the feeling that you are trying to say something. :-)
3 posted on 11/20/2002 7:25:45 AM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Valin
"Those elections came between the end of the Cold War and Sept. 11, 2001 — a period when issues of national security, for the first time in memory, were not preoccupying Americans' minds."

A great point. I firmly believe that future historians will treat the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11 as "bookends" of a distinct era in American life and politics. During that time we got complacent and ignored the rest of the world. Not to let Clinton off the hook for his complete indifference to foreign policy, but I think his attitude really reflected the mindset of the majority of the time. He was at least as much of a symptom and a reflection as he was a cause of how soft, lazy and shortsighted most Americans were in this time period. The degree to which he is the poster boy for that 90's sense of false security is probably going to be his real legacy to future generations.
4 posted on 11/20/2002 7:30:48 AM PST by Media Insurgent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Strangely, perhaps, the pacifist, anti-war sentiment that was the heart and soul of the '60s is the one legacy of that era Democrats need most to discard to win more elections.

But they won't 'cause they're all a bunch of Wussies. Enough Americans know this to make a difference for a long time to come. VIVA REPUBLICANS!

BTW, about 4 months prior to the past elections I posted somewhere on this vast board that "Republicans would win big time-count on it". Do I get a prize for that? ; )

5 posted on 11/20/2002 7:30:59 AM PST by Musket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Media Insurgent
I firmly believe that future historians will treat the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11 as "bookends" of a distinct era in American life and politics.

Hey we won the cold war! Lets PARTY!
Reality DOES have a way of biting you in the butt if you don't keep your wits about you.
6 posted on 11/20/2002 7:39:37 AM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Musket
Do I get a prize for that? ; )

Indeed you do. You win my warmest personal regards.
That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. :-)
7 posted on 11/20/2002 7:42:20 AM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Musket
Do I get a prize for that?

Depends.....what do you want?

8 posted on 11/20/2002 7:44:29 AM PST by shiva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Remember everyone talking about the "Peace Dividend" that we would get from not having to spend money on defense? I think it was Tom Clancy who pointed out that when you maintain a strong defense, peace IS the dividend.
9 posted on 11/20/2002 7:49:33 AM PST by Media Insurgent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Valin
...Democrats must fearlessly consider the implication of this pattern. Whatever other problems they face, it simply seems that too many ordinary Americans lack confidence that modern liberals will boldly defend the nation and its interests....

Oh yeah. There is a complete and very deserved lack of confidence out here in America regarding the old crusty liberal hippies in congress who have refused to grow and up and understand that FREEDOM in NEVER FREE!

10 posted on 11/20/2002 7:50:31 AM PST by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
And now the Democratic party has turned into the "Donner Party" with the election of Nancy Pelosi. If you recall, the Donner party was the wagon train of settlers heading west that went down the wrong trail and got stranded for the winter and had to resort to cannibalism to survive. How did this happen? The Donner's et. al. bought a trail book from a shyster purporting to show the way for a faster route to the west coast.

The 60's radical liberalism philosphy is that same trail book. Yet the liberal Democrats insist on following that route.

Communism is now shown not to work. Socialism is being shown as working very poorly. Soon it won't work at all. Liberalism is next up for all the masses to finally realize that it doesn't work either.
These things take time. I figure about 75 years. That's how long it took communism to fail.
11 posted on 11/20/2002 7:55:31 AM PST by Ronaldus Magnus Reagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Media Insurgent
Some of us still remember hearing about the "Peace Dividend" at the end of the Viet-Nam war. It's as stupid then as it is now. It's all part of the "Can't we all just get along" syndrome, here in the real world the answer is NO! For every Mother Teresa I can show you 6(at least) Pol Pots.
12 posted on 11/20/2002 7:57:37 AM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Republic
Agreed. Whether or not Vietnam was mishandled or was a "mistake," liberals adopted irrational and anti-American arguments to oppose the war. (First example right there, there was a war whether we were in it or not but they always wanted to "stop the war" like we caused it).

If you look at the ridiculous approaches by liberals to Vietnam and apply them to the real world, you get in trouble pretty fast. Some favorites:

1. The U.S. invaded Cambodia, expanding the war. In reality the N. Vietnamese had occupied Eastern Cambodia for years and the Cambodian government approved of our incursion and bombing. But the leftists still rail about Nixon's "bombing of Cambodia" as a criminal act. Pure nonsense.

2. The S. Vietnamese were cowards. Leftists are the original racists, and the S. Vietnamese were our allies, so naturally they were scum. I will never forget the NYT story after the SV's held on at An Loc after being cut off for weeks. The dead NV's were found chained inside their tanks. The NYT wrote that the battle of An Loc proved "even a rat will fight when it is cornered."

There are too many and this post is overlong, but the liberal legacy of Vietnam includes: Giving credit to every oppressive invading left wing dictatorship, assuming America is wrong and has no rights in every dispute, unilateral disarmament, hatred of our own military as murdrers, etc.

13 posted on 11/20/2002 8:04:08 AM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Valin
For every Mother Teresa I can show you 6(at least) Pol Pots.

You're being generous -- I'd have guessed about 600 Pol Pots for every Mother Teresa (or maybe 666 ...)

14 posted on 11/20/2002 8:04:31 AM PST by bassmaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Valin
"For every Mother Teresa I can show you 6(at least) Pol Pots."

I could show you 6 potential Pol Pots in the crowd of any given "peace" demonstration. Probably a couple Hitlers, several dozen Stalins and scores of Robespierres. The people who cry the loudest for disarmament are the ones who would be most dangerous if the weapons were under their control.
15 posted on 11/20/2002 8:06:43 AM PST by Media Insurgent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Media Insurgent
We got our "peace dividend" on 9/11.
16 posted on 11/20/2002 8:07:28 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Valin; backhoe
Al Gore also ran very well in 2000, winning the popular vote.

I so sick of hearing this.

First of all, it's irrelevant because of the electoral college system.

Secondly, considering the epidemic of vote fraud in 'Rat districts, it's likely that GWB actually did win the popular vote. I wish someone like Scaife or Klayman would put up resources to investigate this and show to the world just how much corruption and fraud there actually is in our electoral process. The recent Johnson/Thune debacle in SD is yet another stinking example.

17 posted on 11/20/2002 8:11:46 AM PST by bassmaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
Clinton enjoyed a peace dividend all throughout his term. Oh wait...that was a "piece dividend."
18 posted on 11/20/2002 8:12:29 AM PST by Media Insurgent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Had we taken care of business in Cambodia, there would have been no Pol Pot, and no Killing Fields, another little "fact" the Commie Libs avoid pointing out.
19 posted on 11/20/2002 8:12:31 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Media Insurgent
Most of the anti-war activists during the Vietnam War were not "anti-war" at all. They just thought we were fighting for the wrong side.
20 posted on 11/20/2002 8:13:44 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Bump for later.
21 posted on 11/20/2002 8:14:23 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
The Democrats are tearing each apart, not over policy differences but over their lack of people with stature in the party. The party of dwarfs is both infuriating and amusing to watch. And the past election which revealed them to be a hollow shell, is the least of their problems. Can any one say the Dems are going to make a comeback? With all the good advice being offered them on how to do just that, they insist on continuing the formula that led to their defeat on the grounds it hasn't been tried nearly hard enough! If they keep shrinking in the next few election cycles, perhaps, just perhaps history will deliver the verdict: R.I.P Democratic Party.
22 posted on 11/20/2002 8:17:40 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Media Insurgent
clinton never uttered a policy statement that was not tuned by polling and focus groups. Bush uses focus groups also, but only after the policy has been decided on merit. the difference is notable.

A lot of conservatives are bitching about potential excesses in "homeland security". there is nothing new in this. I can recall in the 50s, my mother threatening to resign as a teacher rather than be fingerprinted. Police excess comes and goes in this country.

23 posted on 11/20/2002 8:18:24 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Valin
libs may be down, but not to worry, they still have trent lott and the rest of the rnc statist socialist mouth breathers, who call a compromise with evil "bi partisanship."
24 posted on 11/20/2002 8:21:30 AM PST by galt-jw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
I think this article presents only half of the story. Yes Republicans are stronger when defense and foreign affairs are issues, but the country has been moving to the right consistently on economic and social issues for the last 20 years. The only Democrats to occupy the white house in the last 40 years were southerners, who at least pretended to be moderate Democrats. Gore could have beat GW, had he run slighly more to the right (and not being a doofus would have helped too). The south will never elect a Democrat who is not one of their own, and without the south the Democrats cannot win presidential election.
25 posted on 11/20/2002 8:25:57 AM PST by Pres Raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
"Most of the anti-war activists during the Vietnam War were not "anti-war" at all. They just thought we were fighting for the wrong side."

As evidenced by the North Vietnamese flags they used to carry around at those rallies. Interesting how that little fact gets glossed over when the media romanticises the "young idealists" of that era.

Whenever I see pictures of that, I wonder what would have happened during WWII if a bunch of idiots went around college campuses carrying swastika and rising sun flags. If they had lived to tell about it, they sure as hell wouldn't have had viable political careers when the war was over! The thing that the Democrats don't realize is that when it comes to foreign policy, the attitude of the average American today is a lot closer to the mood of 1942 than that of 1968.
26 posted on 11/20/2002 8:28:46 AM PST by Media Insurgent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
First of all, it's irrelevant because of the electoral college system.
It is irrelevant and not. Given that 2000 was only the second time the winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the electoral college vote.

I wish someone like Scaife or Klayman would put up resources to investigate this and show to the world just how much corruption and fraud there actually is in our electoral process.
There is a pulitzer prize just waiting to be picked up by someone. Weather someone will pick it up....

While I'm still enjoying the results of this election now is not the time to rest on our laurels as the rats are going to be coming back meaner than a junkyard dog. 2004 will be the watershed election for them, if they don't make a major comeback it's over for the post 68 democrat party. They know it and they are going to get nasty.

27 posted on 11/20/2002 8:30:25 AM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: shiva
Depends.....what do you want?

LOL. Thanks but just letting a few people know that my prediction came true is reward enough. I'm usually wrong. ; )

28 posted on 11/20/2002 8:31:47 AM PST by Musket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
Al Gore also ran very well in 2000, winning the popular vote

Not just that, but if the elections were about winning the POPULAR vote, then GW spends much more time and money in Texas, where his popularity there gets him a couple million more votes.

I mean, if you want to change the rules, change them BEFORE the game. Dont bitch and moan AFTER.

Sounds something like this:
"Well, even though your football team scored the most points, mine got the most yards! Woo hoo!"

Pathetic..

29 posted on 11/20/2002 8:35:09 AM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Valin
IMO, this article makes some good points. I'm hoping Republicans will take good advantage of the current window of opportunity to strengthen the American two parent family, bring US citizens of all persuasions together as Americans, put a workable NMD system in place and, incidentally, maintain the US's preeminence in space based research and commercial development.
30 posted on 11/20/2002 8:43:40 AM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
The Dem dirty trick (oxymoron?) of unearthing Bush's 25 year old conviction for drunk driving had more of an effect than anyone has imagined. In the long run, it hasn't had much of an effect but during the extremely short interval between the time it broke and the election of 2000, many people subconciously were led to the conclusion that Bush was a dumb fratboy. And lest our lunatic left friends forget: It was the "Republican biased" Fox News that broke this story and repeated over and over! Contrast this to the despicable NBC News which censored and later very reluctantly reported on Juanita Broaddrick, all under the pretext of "We don't want to influence the impeachment vote." In fact, I heard more promotion at the time on NBC of Barbara Walters' interview with Monica than they did of Lisa Myers' work. I remember the night the report aired, Tom Brokaw told viewers about the upcoming Dateline report as "And tonight on Dateline, a woman's astonishing accusation" not saying against whom or of what. The fact is that the management at the news networks is completely corrupt and makes conscious choices to aid Democrats--probably because many of them have worked for them.
31 posted on 11/20/2002 8:48:36 AM PST by GulliverSwift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Musket
LOL. Thanks but just letting a few people know that my prediction came true is reward enough. I'm usually wrong. ; )

Awwww, come on....I was hoping to have a little fun with you. LOL! Ask and you shall recieve.

32 posted on 11/20/2002 8:55:42 AM PST by shiva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
Don't forget the single biggest factor in swaying the popular vote, the early call of Florida for Gore by the media. This suppressed not only the conservative voters in Florida, but across the nation, as it made it appear that Bush had been elinated.
It is my firm belief that Bush would have won the popular vote, and that one or more of the senate losses would have been reversed, making Jeffords defection moot, if not for that premature call.
33 posted on 11/20/2002 9:12:40 AM PST by Electron Wizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Thud
ping
34 posted on 11/20/2002 9:19:39 AM PST by Dark Wing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
Freepers should remember that Rupert Murdoch supported Al Gore for the presidency. He paid the costs of the Democratic convention, and he put a leash on the conservative writers for the NY Post. The Times (UK) went full-bore against George Bush for months.

Drudge also did a lot to publicize the Bush as frat-boy image. He also pushed hard for that fake biography of Bush that the publishers withdrew when they learned that the author was a lying felon. At that time Drudge was working closely with Murdoch, although he seems to dislike Bush personally as well.

Murdoch presumably made the decision that Gore was going to win and that he was tired of fighting against a hostile federal regulatory atmosphere, as he did for 8 years against clinton. He wanted to expand into satellite TV, and clinton was blocking him.

On November 6, Murdoch dropped Gore and changed sides. Evidently he decided that Bush would win the chad war. But Fox cannot always be counted on. For instance, it will never speak the truth about China, because Murdoch has too many interests there.

So, enjoy Fox while you can. But don't be under the illusion that it is absolutely reliable in the clutch.
35 posted on 11/20/2002 9:25:31 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Media Insurgent
(turn your post number 15) You mean like Hillary?
36 posted on 11/20/2002 9:27:47 AM PST by Capt.YankeeMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Electron Wizard
Yes, and to further the notion of corruption, the fact that Florida went for new electronic voting machines and the fact that Jeb won by a higher than expected margin may be due to the fact that the Dems generated a hugh number of false ballots for Gore in 2000.
37 posted on 11/20/2002 9:28:11 AM PST by KC_for_Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Valin
...
38 posted on 11/20/2002 9:34:04 AM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin; Poohbah; Miss Marple; Howlin
Unfortunately for the Dems, they have bet their political mortgages on the Left.

They need the Left, or they lose. But to appease the Left, they turn off a significant portion of the center, and barring stupidity on the part of the GOP, they lose 99 times out of 100.
39 posted on 11/20/2002 9:40:27 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Sam Smith ( one of the few on the Left I hold in some esteem ) had an interesting article about this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/792005/posts
THE PARTY'S OVER - Sam Smith on the Demise of the Democrats
The Progressive Review ^ | 11/18/2002 | Sam Smith

40 posted on 11/20/2002 10:18:41 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin

41 posted on 11/20/2002 10:22:31 AM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus Reagan
This is really good: Now the Democratic party has turned into the "Donner Party" with the election of Nancy Pelosi!

I look at the Rat Party as the experiment of socialism/communism that actually got started in 1932 under FDR.

There was a break during WWII from their march to socialism/communism.

So we are at the 70 th anniversary of their cycle minus the 4 years of WW II.

I think that we will see the Donner Party as you so aptly called it do a total implosion between now and the election of 2004. Then when President Bush is sworn in for his second term with massive majorities in Congress in 2005, that will be the final year of the current Rat cycle. That will be close to your 75 year cycle observation.

In the next two years we see the financial collapse of the socialist/communist states like Kalifornicator, Oregone and other states who tax and tax and then spend more than they can tax. This will destroy the Rats at the state and local level.

Goron Cities like NYC, DC, Atlanta, Houston, LA, San Francisco, Portland, Or and Seattle will become enclaves of the last of the rats. As they kill each other off, abort their children before they are born and die with short life spans due to aids and drug related health problems, in about two decades they will be gone. These dying cities filled with dying Rats will become hell on earth for the surviving rats until they leave us alone.

During those final years, these Rat enclave cities will make the Donner Party look civilized. Travel in and out of the Donner Party controlled cities will be banned with armed guards preventing people from coming and going to these dying Donner Party Cites.

42 posted on 11/20/2002 10:37:55 AM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: Media Insurgent
Very well said!
44 posted on 11/20/2002 12:08:20 PM PST by ConservativeConvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Media Insurgent; All
Remember everyone talking about the "Peace Dividend" that we would get from not having to spend money on defense?

Media Insurgent, I remember it well. The 'PEACE Dividend' was to have been National Health Care, and would have been, had not the national destraction that became the WACO Atrocity occurred.

Newt is given far too much credit for the 1994 takeover of Congress. Yes, the Contract With America contributed, but the sense that we needed, SOMEHOW, to put a brake on an out of control Administration, was overwhelming!

Clinton spent the rest of his political capital trying to destroy the Republican Party, and the rest, as they say, is History.

But, make no mistake, the Peace Dividend, in the early heady days of 1993, was to be National Health Care.

And, Yes, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Fall of the Twin Towers mark the bookends of a very unserious Decade.

45 posted on 11/20/2002 12:25:00 PM PST by Lael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
"I mean, if you want to change the rules, change them BEFORE the game. Dont bitch and moan AFTER."

Demonrats change the rules DURING the game!!!
46 posted on 11/20/2002 12:55:53 PM PST by SwinneySwitch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: shiva
Hmmm.........let's see........well, I've always wanted to live in Northern or Central California or Oregon or Washington State. Can ya set me up? But seriously, the way things are going today I just might get my wish. You see, since I last posted to you I was laid off from my job of 16 years in the advertising/print publishing industry. I also know a fair amout about web stuff and as everyone else here is, I too am a rock ribbed Conservative--which btw makes it less difficult to leave the old job as they were a bunch of clueless Liberals--for the most part.

I'm a healthy hard worker of 47 years, no wife, no kids, and I'm always willing to put out the extra effort to get the job done and not cry about it. And I'll work any shift. So if you know of anyone who needs a guy like me drop me a FreepMail. BTW, I'm not against changing careers either. I've always dreamed of being a Greyhound bus driver or even a cab driver. Yeah, I'm kinda nutty like that : ) And I'm thinking about maybe helping people who are less fortunate than I, like an old folks home or something. If something different and interesting comes my way, I'll go for it! I've got a nice severance cushion so I'm not in any immediate danger thankfully.

I suspect I'll be spending a lot more time on FR for a while. : ) Now don't get all maudlin on me or anything. Like I said, I'm pretty well set up for a while.

Thanks for listening and send those prospects! : )

47 posted on 11/20/2002 1:01:16 PM PST by Musket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Williams
If you look at the ridiculous approaches by liberals to Vietnam and apply them to the real world, you get in trouble pretty fast. Some favorites:

You left out 3. The Tet Offensive was a great victory for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. In reality, the Viet Cong in the South was largely destroyed and the only city they held for a significant amount of time was Hue.

To say that the North won the Tet Offensive would be like saying the Germans won the Battle of the Bulge because they surrounded Bastogne. Not surprisingly, it was not reported that way in the US.

48 posted on 11/20/2002 1:17:24 PM PST by KarlInOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus Reagan
And now the Democratic party has turned into the "Donner Party" with the election of Nancy Pelosi. If you recall, the Donner party was the wagon train of settlers heading west that went down the wrong trail and got stranded for the winter and had to resort to cannibalism to survive. How did this happen? The Donner's et. al. bought a trail book from a shyster purporting to show the way for a faster route to the west coast.

Well then, Bon Appetit! I've heard tell it tastes just like chicken.

49 posted on 11/20/2002 1:20:47 PM PST by Stefan Stackhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lael
"Newt is given far too much credit for the 1994 takeover of Congress."

Looking back on it, I agree. I think '94 was much more of a referendum on Clinton then it was a response to the Contract with America. In fact, it doesn't seem like anyone talked much about the Newt and the Contract until after the election. I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing them altogether, but the role that anger over Clinton's foibles with health care, gays in the military, Somalia and Waco seems to be largely forgotten.

Thinking about it now, it's likely that overestimating Newt's part in that victory is what led to all the troubles the GOP had in getting outmaneuvered by Clinton '95 & '96. We thought we had won the hearts and minds to a greater degree than was actually the case.
50 posted on 11/20/2002 1:21:54 PM PST by Media Insurgent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson