Election a disaster for the Republican Party

[akaLogic]

Bush won a squeaker (say 100K+ votes in Ohio would have turned the entire election) against one of the weakest candidates that the Democrats could have picked, a man completely without honor. Imagine what would have happened against even a reasonable candidate. It would have been a Democratic landslide.

The small win deprives Bush of any chance to implement a real Republican agenda. Even if he had the will to try, he will fail to get it through the legislature. Regardless of whether a real Republican agenda would be a good thing or not, what we will get will be worse of all possible worlds: a sugarcoated Democratic agenda that will do the most possible harm.

Besides which, Bush will still have to deal with the mess in Iraq in his own clueless way. We may still get a worse government there than the one we overthrew if we don’t have the moral courage to assert that any just government is based on the rights of man, not some power faction/religious faction/tribal balancing act.

Even worse, this “victory” will undoubtedly embolden the religious right to completely take over the Republican Party, guarantying that no reasonable Republican will be able to be nominated for the foreseeable future. If the Democrats do manage to nominate a non-Hilary in 2008, the Republican Party may have signed its death warrant with this election.

[PhatTBoll]

Two words:

Ah
Nuld

[The Dude]

Nice try.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Two words:

Ah
Nuld

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard his name tossed out along with Rudy Guliani. I'm not quite sure how that will play out with the base, who put family values at the top of the list. Arnold is too liberal for them. Guliani, who was a public adulteror, might not play well with them. Here is a guy who was carrying on an affair in public, and whose wife found out that he was going to divorce her while she was watching him being interviewed on television.

Once you start losing your base, you have a very hard time getting elected. While they aren't going to vote for a democrat, many of them will just stay home. Bush won this year because they love the guy, and they turned out for him like never before.

[slickpoppa]

Not unless a constitutional amendment is passed. You have to be born in America to be president.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Not unless a constitutional amendment is passed. You have to be born in America to be president.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conan laughs in the face of such talk.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Orrin Hatch has already drafted the amendment.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The small win deprives Bush of any chance to implement a real Republican agenda.

This was no *small* win. Bush is the first candidate since '88 to win a majority of the popular vote with the biggest % voter turnout since '68. He has a strong majority in both houses. There will likely be a bill to eliminate the income tax in favor of a national sales tax (google "fairtax" for info) plus at least two SCOTUS justices will retire in the next 4 years.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Orrin Hatch has already drafted the amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I meant to say.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It's probably a longshot that it'll even get the 2/3 of both houses and even less likely that 3/4 of the states will ratify.

[judgesmails]

... analysis. It appeared to be a very big night for Republicans across the board to me. Net gains in both the House and Senate - increasing majorities in both Houses and winning the popular vote in the presidential race with the highest percentage garnered by a winner since 1988 looks like a good night to me.

I predict this will embolden the Bush administration to push forward with tax code simplification, Social Security "privatization", and health savings accounts on the domestic agenda and to continue its pre-emptive approach to fighting terrorism.

You can call Bush a lot of things, timid (about pushing his agenda) is not one of them.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
It's probably a longshot that it'll even get the 2/3 of both houses and even less likely that 3/4 of the states will ratify.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. He should probably get appointed secretary of agriculture, then burn through the presidential succession, Terminator-style.

[Abednego]

This is funny .... and to think that you have logic as a part of your name ..... priceless. I can only hope the Republicans have more such disasters in its future.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
The small win deprives Bush of any chance to implement a real Republican agenda.

This was no *small* win. Bush is the first candidate since '88 to win a majority of the popular vote with the biggest % voter turnout since '68. He has a strong majority in both houses. There will likely be a bill to eliminate the income tax in favor of a national sales tax (google "fairtax" for info) plus at least two SCOTUS justices will retire in the next 4 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a clear victory. Not a small win, but not even close to a landslide. It's comparable to Jimmy Carter's victory over Gerald Ford in 1976.

As for the electoral college, only three times since the Civil War has a president won by a narrower margin: Hayes won by 1 in 1876; Wilson won by 23 in 1916 and Bush won by 5 in 2000.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine what would have happened against even a reasonable candidate. It would have been a Democratic landslide.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are wearing blinders. The Democrats presented the best candidate possible and still lost. The problem lies in Democratic values which are proving unsuitable for today's society not in finding a better nominee.

[ QUOTE ]
The small win deprives Bush of any chance to implement a real Republican agenda. Even if he had the will to try, he will fail to get it through the legislature.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a poor understanding of how our government really works. The Republicans control all three branches of government and you think President Bush will have difficulty promoting his agenda? Sheesh, you gotta be young.

[ QUOTE ]
We may still get a worse government there than the one we overthrew

[/ QUOTE ]

Hello, anybody home up there? We overthrew Saddam Hussein, not Ghandi. Just how difficult do you suppose it will be to form a better government than his brutal dictatorship?

Jimbo

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

[ QUOTE ]
The small win deprives Bush of any chance to implement a real Republican agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you for real?

As though we have not had a "Republican Agenda" in the wake of his small loss in 2000. He governed as though he won by a mandate of Stalinist proportions.

Perhaps you are referring to current spending as "non-republican" though it is for conservative programs?

W/ GOP house/Senate, the sky's the limit. Fiscal conservatism is only for repubs in a Democratic congress.

You are right that the Dem's will eventualy take it back, but the GOP will manage to lock in everything that they need for decades to come.

We will, as always, get exactly what we deserve.

[ctv1116]

LOL, the Democrats have only themselves to blame for their falure to win this election. Anything other than self-introspection by the Democrats will lead their party to lose more and more seats in the Congress.

[akaLogic]

[ QUOTE ]
Hello, anybody home up there? We overthrew Saddam Hussein, not Ghandi. Just how difficult do you suppose it will be to form a better government than his brutal dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, all you have to do is look at Iraq's next door neighbor to find out how much worse it can be. Do you really want an Iran/Iraq to fight next time?

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hello, anybody home up there? We overthrew Saddam Hussein, not Ghandi. Just how difficult do you suppose it will be to form a better government than his brutal dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, all you have to do is look at Iraq's next door neighbor to find out how much worse it can be. Do you really want an Iran/Iraq to fight next time?

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you saying, that the US will engage in a retro WWI style trench warfare duel with Canada?

[akaLogic]

[ QUOTE ]
You have a poor understanding of how our government really works. The Republicans control all three branches of government and you think President Bush will have difficulty promoting his agenda? Sheesh, you gotta be young

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't I wish.

I truly don't think Bush has an agenda, other than some vague social religious goals. He might try to beef up the Patriot act somehow, or put more restrictions on abortion, but his domestic victories will be,

Open up x% of Alaska” for oil exploration.
Cut the income tax rate another 5%.
Save Social Security by raising the tax rate 5%.

Do you really think these will make a difference?

One thing he will never do is challenge any basic premise of the welfare state.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
The small win deprives Bush of any chance to implement a real Republican agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Republicans control the White House and both branches of congress, just like they have for the last four years.

They can implement whatever agenda they want to. So far, it's been "tax cut and spend." We'll see how much more debt they can rack up in the next four years.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
Fiscal conservatism is only for repubs in a Democratic congress.


[/ QUOTE ]

They actually stayed a bit conservative when they controlled it under Clinton (hence the surplus), but they learned (as the Dems did before them) how easy it is to spend the public's money to retain their seats and now I agree with your statement 100%. Maybe it is time for term limits.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush won a squeaker (say 100K+ votes in Ohio would have turned the entire election) against one of the weakest candidates that the Democrats could have picked, a man completely without honor. Imagine what would have happened against even a reasonable candidate. It would have been a Democratic landslide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine what would have happened if Kerry was running against a reasonable candidate. He would have been lucky to carry his own state. Teresa would have voted Republican (the party of her first husband).


[ QUOTE ]
The small win deprives Bush of any chance to implement a real Republican agenda. Even if he had the will to try, he will fail to get it through the legislature.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the biggest presidential victory in 20 years. The GOP now has 55 Senate seats and a big majority in the House. The Republican power right now is scary. Kerry was ineffectual, but he would have stalemated Congress, which, in my humble opinion, is beneficial to the country. As far as law-making is concerned, no news is good news.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]

Even worse, this “victory” will undoubtedly embolden the religious right to completely take over the Republican Party, guarantying that no reasonable Republican will be able to be nominated for the foreseeable future. If the Democrats do manage to nominate a non-Hilary in 2008, the Republican Party may have signed its death warrant with this election.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to agree with you but as it turns out the Republicans just put up an unreasonable candidate and he won .

[akaLogic]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine what would have happened if Kerry was running against a reasonable candidate. He would have been lucky to carry his own state. Teresa would have voted Republican (the party of her first husband).


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Excellent point. What I am afraid of is that this election will be misinterpreted as a mandate for the religious right, and next time they will nominate someone even worse.