You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Presidential Race in 2004
- Thread starter croyance
- Start date
Barnes will be for any issue he thinks the crowd he is talking to is for. He is a politician at its highest level.Haven't seen one like him since the Kingfish in La. He does sign pro-gun laws here when put before him, as he knows it would be political suicide not to in Georgia. The conservative white gun owner/hunter still "calls the shots here". Barnes would make Klinton look like a choir boy if elected president. I would vote against him if he ran again for Governor.
It doesn't really matter what his record on guns is as Georgia Governor. If he hopes to have any support as a Democrat Presidential contender, he will support gun control.
Prior to running for national office, both Clinton and Gore were pro-gun and pro-life. They had to be to win in their southern states. But as soon as they needed the support of the northern liberals, they changed their positions on both issues.
Prior to running for national office, both Clinton and Gore were pro-gun and pro-life. They had to be to win in their southern states. But as soon as they needed the support of the northern liberals, they changed their positions on both issues.
Heck, I'm runnin' for President in 04, Here's my message to you all:
Quitcher whinin, and mind your own business.
It ain't the cop's responsibility to keep you safe; it's yours.
It ain't the teachers responsibility to insure your child's education; it's yours.
It aint the gubmints responsibility to put away criminals or free the innocent; it's yours (via Jury).
It ain't the Physicians responsibility to insure your health, it's yours (the physician, cop and teachers are only advisors you hire to help you with YOUR responsibility)
You can delegate authority but you cannot delegate responsibility.
Quit shirkin' your duty, and get busy.
Now, waddaya think? Can I get elected?!?
Quitcher whinin, and mind your own business.
It ain't the cop's responsibility to keep you safe; it's yours.
It ain't the teachers responsibility to insure your child's education; it's yours.
It aint the gubmints responsibility to put away criminals or free the innocent; it's yours (via Jury).
It ain't the Physicians responsibility to insure your health, it's yours (the physician, cop and teachers are only advisors you hire to help you with YOUR responsibility)
You can delegate authority but you cannot delegate responsibility.
Quit shirkin' your duty, and get busy.
Now, waddaya think? Can I get elected?!?
Munro Williams
New member
Something that Bears Repeating
Toward Political Realities and Resurrection.
From TFL's own RLK
This morning I awoke to find the following headlines:
"Americans awoke without a new president on Wednesday after Republican George W. Bush saw his apparent victory over Democrat Al Gore snatched away, at least for the time being, pending a recount in Florida. "
Gore now stands ahead of Bush in the total U. S. popular vote regardless of the Florida recount.
This is not what I had hoped for two years ago. It is just about what I expected would happen after George Bush won the Republican Primary.
Ronald Reagan gave America relief from people of the caliber of the Clintons and the Gores twenty years ago. In return for the new opportunity Reagan gave us, America threw the chance Reagan gave us away. We can blame many people for this. But the blame can be lain upon Republicans and the Republican party as much as anyone else. The Republican leadership and many Republicans fought Reagan in 1976, and again in 1980. Reagan won election by circumventing the Republican leadership and the leftist media, and going directly to the people.
Let me begin with the premise that American political candidates are created by the mass media. They are created, created, by giving selected people increased visibility, appealing image, and an illusion of leadership. This is where the primary selection process occurs. All that is subsequent is secondary. Without media support and name recognition, a person goes nowhere in politics with exceptions such as Reagan.
George Bush was selected by the leftist media. He was declared to be the front-runner a year and a half ago. He was selected because he had a superficial validity that could be used to sell him, but posed no real threat to the liberal establishment. He has a pleasant nonconfrontive Personality. He shows little ideological depth or commitment. He has no force of ideas. A bland pleasant nonconfrontive personality would leave a vacuum that would be filled by the radical left, who would then be in substantive domination of the political dialogue in America.
Al Gore is immature, half-witted, and only half sane. He is the most hopeless candidate for president imaginable. But George Bush was unable to hold his own against Gore. The idea that the contest should be anywhere near close is unbelievable. But Bush allowed Gore to frame the focus of the debate.
There are serious real issues in America, which should have been made the issues in the election. The cost and near collapse of social services due to collective irresponsibility is serious in America. The question of whether the tax system should be used to achieve economic equality regardless of the irresponsible attitudes and behavior of those demanding equality is another. The question of whether men in a free society should be forced into involuntary servitude to a social system as opposed to man owning himself is still another. These are only some among many legitimate questions that should be discussed and made central issues.
Instead, both the Bush and Gore campaign became an exercise in triviality and evasiveness, with quibbling and cross-accusations over obscure numbers and whatever.
Some believe Bush's evasiveness was a clever attempt to sidestep the potential land mines of serious issues. But in a year and a half I saw no evidence Bush understood those issues. Indications are he lacks that development of mind. If he did understand, he was unable or too frightened to articulate them well enough to draw support for them. This would have left him with an immobilized bankrupt presidency had he been elected, and even now if he takes office through electoral technicality. A president can not accomplish anything substantive in office without developing an ideological momentum for change and accomplishment beforehand, then maintaining that momentum after entering office.
Bush was as evasive as Gore, and appeared as witless as Gore. As a consequence, he wound up with about the same number of votes as Gore, and apparently a few less on the overall national level.
Let's make it clear. Even if Bush ascends into office through electoral college technicality, he has still lost this election. Moreover, he has the distinction of having lost the election to an opponent who is clearly mentally defective. There is little widespread support for George Bush on a National level. Bush's votes were received mostly in desperate hope of protection against Al Gore, or as the least damaging path of escape in a hopeless bargain.
If Bush does this poorly against a moronic Al Gore, what would happen when Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency in 2004? A Bush win puts Hillary in the White House.
I am familiar with all the arguments saying Hillary can't win. In rebuttal let it be pointed out the Clintons have got everything they wanted for 30 years. They have controlled a governorship, two terms of the presidency, and now a senatorship. They haven't missed a step. That's as good a record as is possible.
The forelorn attempt at rebuttal I get when I bring this up starts out with, "But..." But nothing. "Buts" don't make it in this world. Reality does. The reality is that Hillary Clinton is the most formidable opponent the political left can offer in America. She has all the strengths Gore lacks. Anyone who can't prevail convincingly against Gore will crumble before Hillary.
If Hillary runs for office in 2004, she will carry every state won by Gore. If a group of voters is nuts enough to vote for Gore, then it must be figured they will be nuts enough to vote for Hillary. She will dominate the women's vote. A change in one out of 50 women to vote for a woman presidential candidate puts the states that marginally went for Bush this time into the Hillary column next time.
If Bush manages to get a Florida recount and enter office, it puts Hillary in in 2004. If Hillary had failed to win in New York, a Bush presidency would have been livable. A Hillary win combined with a Bush win spells delayed catastrophe.
George Bush shares something in common with his father. Bush senior's presidency was obsolete from its first moment. It's the old style in which the correct family background, the correct schools, the correct background in so-called public service, was sufficient to entitle one to enter a figurehead presidency or similar office. It gave us the Harrimans, the Roosevelts, the Cabots, the Lodges, the Bushes.
Such is no longer the case. Bush senior was barely aware of, and was removed from, the great struggle between the radical left and the people for the soul of America. He gave the people little support in that struggle. That's one reason he lost his bid for reelection.
So, too, it is for his son.
In short, a Bush presidency would be a strategic long term victory for the radical left in America.
At the very worst for the radical left, a Bush presidency would fill a four year period with a weak presidency while Hillary was groomed for 2004.
The clever mother give the child an illusion of choice in order to get him to do what she wants him to do. The kid wants to live off cookies and cake. The mother give his choice, broccoli or spinach. The kid thinks he is getting his way.
And so it was during the Republican primary. The leftist media gave us the illusion of choice, Bush or McCain, either of which was good for the left. Bush was of lethargic mentality who did not prepare himself for the presidency. McCain was a former playboy who got captured in Viet Nam, which was his strong point, and was a one-issue campaign finance reform candidate. An illusion of contest and choice was created between Bush and McCain, either of which was a weak candidate acceptable for the purposes of the political left. The focus upon Bush and McCain excluded the only real threat to liberalism, which was the thundering mind and voice of Alan Keyes. Keyes was made into a non person. When it was over, there was no way out for the non left in America.
Today, when I talk to Republicans about Alan Keyes, they ask me, "Who is Alan Keyes?"
The best thing that could have happened for the radical left was to see Bush get elected and then put Hillary, who is nothing but a neo-Marxist, in in 2004. In my more speculative moods I wonder if this wasn't the plan. However, Bush was even more inept than anyone could possible envision, pushing the Hillary candidacy off for an additional four years. (To call Bush inept is an exercise in kindness requiring nearly superhuman levels of restraint.) If Al Gore takes office, it really messes things up for Hillary and the radical left. It doesn't do much for America, either. But a Gore ascendancy into office may have the paradoxical effect of temporarily saving the country from Hillary Clinton.
Republicans don't seem to learn. We were set up for the kill in the primaries in 96 with Bob Dole. It was all over after the 2000 primaries. There was no way out and no way of winning even if the candidate chosen for us won. Politics is like chess. The chessmaster sacrifices pawns to achieve checkmate and wins. The amateur thinks he is winning when he takes the pawns, but he loses a tempo, opens up his middle, and is checkmated ten moves later.
Republicans have been playing for pawns. A George Bush win was an offered pawn at the expense of checkmate.
We are now in a situation where the best we can do is cut our losses to a minimum.
The first thing to do is learn from what happened. Is it possible for Republicans to do that? Let's find out.
The real life choices are Bush takes office after a recount, with Hillary moving into the presidency in four years. The other choice is four horrible years of Gore, followed by a retaking of the presidency with a strong serious candidate.
The least worse of the choices is for Bush to go back to Texas where he should never have left, and for the rest of us to work toward retaking the presidency in 2004. Whether Bush wants to be president, or some people think he should be president at this point is irrelevant.
I'm working for Keyes. He is the only candidate the political left fears. He is the only political presence with the mind, presence, force, integrity, and moral authority to confront Hillary Clinton. He is the only candidate with the capacity to inspire a movement. He is the only candidate who has show understanding of the constitution and ability to approach constitutional issues. Like Reagan, he is the only candidate capable of circumventing the media and the Republican establishment once he obtains any visibility. He is the only candidate who frightens the political left.
The criticism is, Keyes wound up with only a few percent of the vote in the last primary. That's a media censorship problem that will need to be overcome by circumventing the media and the Republican establishment the same way Reagan did.
Somewhere on my wall I used to keep a framed letter from a man who was thought to be washed up by the name of Ronald Reagan. We didn't give up then. I'm not giving up now. I'm trying one last time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted a lot of stuff like this during the election froo-haha, with predictably negative responses, but the topic deserves this post.
Keep your powder dry, brethren and sistren!
Toward Political Realities and Resurrection.
From TFL's own RLK
This morning I awoke to find the following headlines:
"Americans awoke without a new president on Wednesday after Republican George W. Bush saw his apparent victory over Democrat Al Gore snatched away, at least for the time being, pending a recount in Florida. "
Gore now stands ahead of Bush in the total U. S. popular vote regardless of the Florida recount.
This is not what I had hoped for two years ago. It is just about what I expected would happen after George Bush won the Republican Primary.
Ronald Reagan gave America relief from people of the caliber of the Clintons and the Gores twenty years ago. In return for the new opportunity Reagan gave us, America threw the chance Reagan gave us away. We can blame many people for this. But the blame can be lain upon Republicans and the Republican party as much as anyone else. The Republican leadership and many Republicans fought Reagan in 1976, and again in 1980. Reagan won election by circumventing the Republican leadership and the leftist media, and going directly to the people.
Let me begin with the premise that American political candidates are created by the mass media. They are created, created, by giving selected people increased visibility, appealing image, and an illusion of leadership. This is where the primary selection process occurs. All that is subsequent is secondary. Without media support and name recognition, a person goes nowhere in politics with exceptions such as Reagan.
George Bush was selected by the leftist media. He was declared to be the front-runner a year and a half ago. He was selected because he had a superficial validity that could be used to sell him, but posed no real threat to the liberal establishment. He has a pleasant nonconfrontive Personality. He shows little ideological depth or commitment. He has no force of ideas. A bland pleasant nonconfrontive personality would leave a vacuum that would be filled by the radical left, who would then be in substantive domination of the political dialogue in America.
Al Gore is immature, half-witted, and only half sane. He is the most hopeless candidate for president imaginable. But George Bush was unable to hold his own against Gore. The idea that the contest should be anywhere near close is unbelievable. But Bush allowed Gore to frame the focus of the debate.
There are serious real issues in America, which should have been made the issues in the election. The cost and near collapse of social services due to collective irresponsibility is serious in America. The question of whether the tax system should be used to achieve economic equality regardless of the irresponsible attitudes and behavior of those demanding equality is another. The question of whether men in a free society should be forced into involuntary servitude to a social system as opposed to man owning himself is still another. These are only some among many legitimate questions that should be discussed and made central issues.
Instead, both the Bush and Gore campaign became an exercise in triviality and evasiveness, with quibbling and cross-accusations over obscure numbers and whatever.
Some believe Bush's evasiveness was a clever attempt to sidestep the potential land mines of serious issues. But in a year and a half I saw no evidence Bush understood those issues. Indications are he lacks that development of mind. If he did understand, he was unable or too frightened to articulate them well enough to draw support for them. This would have left him with an immobilized bankrupt presidency had he been elected, and even now if he takes office through electoral technicality. A president can not accomplish anything substantive in office without developing an ideological momentum for change and accomplishment beforehand, then maintaining that momentum after entering office.
Bush was as evasive as Gore, and appeared as witless as Gore. As a consequence, he wound up with about the same number of votes as Gore, and apparently a few less on the overall national level.
Let's make it clear. Even if Bush ascends into office through electoral college technicality, he has still lost this election. Moreover, he has the distinction of having lost the election to an opponent who is clearly mentally defective. There is little widespread support for George Bush on a National level. Bush's votes were received mostly in desperate hope of protection against Al Gore, or as the least damaging path of escape in a hopeless bargain.
If Bush does this poorly against a moronic Al Gore, what would happen when Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency in 2004? A Bush win puts Hillary in the White House.
I am familiar with all the arguments saying Hillary can't win. In rebuttal let it be pointed out the Clintons have got everything they wanted for 30 years. They have controlled a governorship, two terms of the presidency, and now a senatorship. They haven't missed a step. That's as good a record as is possible.
The forelorn attempt at rebuttal I get when I bring this up starts out with, "But..." But nothing. "Buts" don't make it in this world. Reality does. The reality is that Hillary Clinton is the most formidable opponent the political left can offer in America. She has all the strengths Gore lacks. Anyone who can't prevail convincingly against Gore will crumble before Hillary.
If Hillary runs for office in 2004, she will carry every state won by Gore. If a group of voters is nuts enough to vote for Gore, then it must be figured they will be nuts enough to vote for Hillary. She will dominate the women's vote. A change in one out of 50 women to vote for a woman presidential candidate puts the states that marginally went for Bush this time into the Hillary column next time.
If Bush manages to get a Florida recount and enter office, it puts Hillary in in 2004. If Hillary had failed to win in New York, a Bush presidency would have been livable. A Hillary win combined with a Bush win spells delayed catastrophe.
George Bush shares something in common with his father. Bush senior's presidency was obsolete from its first moment. It's the old style in which the correct family background, the correct schools, the correct background in so-called public service, was sufficient to entitle one to enter a figurehead presidency or similar office. It gave us the Harrimans, the Roosevelts, the Cabots, the Lodges, the Bushes.
Such is no longer the case. Bush senior was barely aware of, and was removed from, the great struggle between the radical left and the people for the soul of America. He gave the people little support in that struggle. That's one reason he lost his bid for reelection.
So, too, it is for his son.
In short, a Bush presidency would be a strategic long term victory for the radical left in America.
At the very worst for the radical left, a Bush presidency would fill a four year period with a weak presidency while Hillary was groomed for 2004.
The clever mother give the child an illusion of choice in order to get him to do what she wants him to do. The kid wants to live off cookies and cake. The mother give his choice, broccoli or spinach. The kid thinks he is getting his way.
And so it was during the Republican primary. The leftist media gave us the illusion of choice, Bush or McCain, either of which was good for the left. Bush was of lethargic mentality who did not prepare himself for the presidency. McCain was a former playboy who got captured in Viet Nam, which was his strong point, and was a one-issue campaign finance reform candidate. An illusion of contest and choice was created between Bush and McCain, either of which was a weak candidate acceptable for the purposes of the political left. The focus upon Bush and McCain excluded the only real threat to liberalism, which was the thundering mind and voice of Alan Keyes. Keyes was made into a non person. When it was over, there was no way out for the non left in America.
Today, when I talk to Republicans about Alan Keyes, they ask me, "Who is Alan Keyes?"
The best thing that could have happened for the radical left was to see Bush get elected and then put Hillary, who is nothing but a neo-Marxist, in in 2004. In my more speculative moods I wonder if this wasn't the plan. However, Bush was even more inept than anyone could possible envision, pushing the Hillary candidacy off for an additional four years. (To call Bush inept is an exercise in kindness requiring nearly superhuman levels of restraint.) If Al Gore takes office, it really messes things up for Hillary and the radical left. It doesn't do much for America, either. But a Gore ascendancy into office may have the paradoxical effect of temporarily saving the country from Hillary Clinton.
Republicans don't seem to learn. We were set up for the kill in the primaries in 96 with Bob Dole. It was all over after the 2000 primaries. There was no way out and no way of winning even if the candidate chosen for us won. Politics is like chess. The chessmaster sacrifices pawns to achieve checkmate and wins. The amateur thinks he is winning when he takes the pawns, but he loses a tempo, opens up his middle, and is checkmated ten moves later.
Republicans have been playing for pawns. A George Bush win was an offered pawn at the expense of checkmate.
We are now in a situation where the best we can do is cut our losses to a minimum.
The first thing to do is learn from what happened. Is it possible for Republicans to do that? Let's find out.
The real life choices are Bush takes office after a recount, with Hillary moving into the presidency in four years. The other choice is four horrible years of Gore, followed by a retaking of the presidency with a strong serious candidate.
The least worse of the choices is for Bush to go back to Texas where he should never have left, and for the rest of us to work toward retaking the presidency in 2004. Whether Bush wants to be president, or some people think he should be president at this point is irrelevant.
I'm working for Keyes. He is the only candidate the political left fears. He is the only political presence with the mind, presence, force, integrity, and moral authority to confront Hillary Clinton. He is the only candidate with the capacity to inspire a movement. He is the only candidate who has show understanding of the constitution and ability to approach constitutional issues. Like Reagan, he is the only candidate capable of circumventing the media and the Republican establishment once he obtains any visibility. He is the only candidate who frightens the political left.
The criticism is, Keyes wound up with only a few percent of the vote in the last primary. That's a media censorship problem that will need to be overcome by circumventing the media and the Republican establishment the same way Reagan did.
Somewhere on my wall I used to keep a framed letter from a man who was thought to be washed up by the name of Ronald Reagan. We didn't give up then. I'm not giving up now. I'm trying one last time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted a lot of stuff like this during the election froo-haha, with predictably negative responses, but the topic deserves this post.
Keep your powder dry, brethren and sistren!