Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 125
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I do not understand, in 1980 Reagan had a huge victory over Carter, and Reagan dominated in 1984 too. Then Bush was president after that, till 1992. I can't see how we could have owned the country at that time. I believe during that period, the public was comfortable having a republican president and democratic congress balance each other.

    I agree with you that the turning point for the GOP in congress came in 1994 when Gingrich and company came in the house. They did it not by inventing a new agenda, contract with America was not much different from the previous republican agenda, but what was new was their unleashing a new brand of in your face attack your enemy politics. They latched onto Clinton's leg and did not let go, and went after every other dem they could sink their teeth into. I think the 1994 house republicans and Gingrich are much to be credited with where the GOP are today in congress and the white house. Very forward thinking about how to sell their ideas and above all how to go on the offensive and never let up.
    First, I just LOVE the way you guys think hardball politics started with Gingrich. Do you remember Gore referring to the "Extra chromosome" Republicans? Barney Frank talking about the "Taliban Republicans"? (Of course, it was a Republican administration that had the cojones to take the Taliban out and liberate the Afghan people.)

    Do you remember how the Dems went after Reagan? (You know, the guy that had the vision and courage to defeat the Evil Empire?) I sure do.

    I listen to CSPAN radio, a lot. A few years ago they were playing the LBJ tapes. It was a recording of LBJ dictating to Katherine Graham what the content of the Washinton Post's editorial page was going to be. I hope you guys remember that the next time you start talking about Jeff Gannon

    I don't know how old you are, Cell, but I suspect that your opinion of "nasty Republicans" is skewed by your lack of time on the planet.
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    No, I think unfortunately that a lot of undecideds really were swayed on things like style, repetition, marketing and good advertising. The democrats tried to adopt a strategy of being republican-lite. Kerry going duck hunting just prior to the election was a classic example. That was a mistake, and just did not sell to these undecideds.

    I know you guys really hate Dean and Hillary, but these are the kinds of democrats who can sell people on their politics. You can say all you want about them, but one thing they are not is wishy washy and you know up front where they stand, just about the opposite in many ways of Kerry. I think they will be much more able to lead the democratic party than Kerry ever could dream of. You can say all you want about them, but they will respond in kind and they will be formidable opponents, you watch. And just like a lot of republicans rode on Bush's coat-tails, you will see dems riding theirs in 2008.

    So I am optimistic about the next elections, pendulums swing back and forth. I do not begrudge anyone their victory, and congratulations you all have the right to enjoy now.

    Cell, I hate to break it to you, but the Dems had the BEST propagandists and message machines (CBS's hit piece, Moore movies, etc.)rendered irrelevant. It wasn't that your message didn't get out. The electorate heard it loud and clear. It was that it was REJECTED.

    You're quite right about pendulums swinging, etc. 25 years ago you guys reached the pinnacle of your power. With Reagan's election we started the swing back from the abyss of socialism. I think the Repubs will have another 30 year run or so, then we'll see.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    First, I just LOVE the way you guys think hardball politics started with Gingrich. Do you remember Gore referring to the "Extra chromosome" Republicans? Barney Frank talking about the "Taliban Republicans"? (Of course, it was a Republican administration that had the cojones to take the Taliban out and liberate the Afghan people.)

    Do you remember how the Dems went after Reagan? (You know, the guy that had the vision and courage to defeat the Evil Empire?) I sure do.

    I listen to CSPAN radio, a lot. A few years ago they were playing the LBJ tapes. It was a recording of LBJ dictating to Katherine Graham what the content of the Washinton Post's editorial page was going to be. I hope you guys remember that the next time you start talking about Jeff Gannon

    I don't know how old you are, Cell, but I suspect that your opinion of "nasty Republicans" is skewed by your lack of time on the planet.
    Thanks for calling me young, but if you only started following politics in 1980, then I have a few years on you. I am not talking about name calling, I am talking about the entire political conversation. Over the past ten years, political conversation has evolved from a pseudointellectual argument into an emotional argument and emotions simply sell much more effectively than an intellectual argument to most people. Democrats try to do this, but do it much less effectively than the GOP, especially the house.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 03/19/2005 at 09:33 AM.
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Thanks for calling me young, but if you only started following politics in 1980, then I have a few years on you. I am not talking about name calling, I am talking about the entire political conversation. Over the past ten years, political conversation has much more evolved into an emotional argument and emotions simply sell much more effectively than an intellectual argument to most people. Democrats try to do this, but do it much less effectively than the GOP, especially the house.
    We're just going to have to disagree on that. For decades I heard Republicans accused of starving children, spreading AIDS and praying for war. This was directly funneled by a complicit media.

    Do you really think it is just marketing that is behind your 20 years of losses? Or is it that the voting majority is just tired of the failed programs your side still espouses?
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Thanks for calling me young, but if you only started following politics in 1980, then I have a few years on you. I am not talking about name calling, I am talking about the entire political conversation. Over the past ten years, politics has moved from an intellectual to an emotional argument, and emotions simply sell much more effectively than an intellectual argument to most people. Many democrats still don't seem to get that.
    You don't type a day over 49, CM.

    I think you are right. However, politics in of itself has always been dirty. Accusations of candidtate mothers being prostitutes (JQ Adams leveled this against Andrew Jackson, not only was mom a hooker, but she married a Mulatto!!!! )

    Abe Lincoln was called a Horrid looking wretch who would force inter-racial marriages!!!

    What goes on now is pretty tame historically. But, since Watergate, reporters seem more interested in being the next Woodward & Bernstien. Face it, politics unfortunately is sport and entertainment. Sounds bites are what seems to work anymore.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  6. #26  
    Just a side note, if you ever get a chance to hear the Nixon\Kennedy debates, they are fascinating. Debating the issues. No mudslinging.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Or is it that the voting majority is just tired of the failed programs your side still espouses?
    1911 is that a loaded question?


    Seriously, it is well known that the electorate is highly polarized. So we are talking about 5% of the public here which swing the election one way or the other. All of the posturing, the political maneuvering, the sound bites etc are directed at that group. Democrats found that being republican-lite does not do it. Republicans found that being more righteous and more indignant does. I look forward to seeing how things evolve the next round.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 03/19/2005 at 10:06 AM.
  8.    #28  
    "Republicans found that being more righteous and more indignant does."

    Righteous? Indignant? Oh, that is rich!

    Al Gore talking about "Extra Chromosome Republicans" is lofty political discourse?

    You wanna hear indignant? Mention the term "Middle class tax cuts" to a group of liberals and listen to the squeals about the children starving, the old people cutting their medications in half, etc. Then listen to those squeals echoed in the MSM and get back to me about self-righteous.

    5% or the public may swing presidential elections, but I don't think that the R majorities in the House, Congress and state legislatures swing on that narrow of a margin.
  9. #29  
    Well lets say the republicans used righteous indignance about the decline of moral values in democrats as a top strategy which got thru to the undecideds and made a difference. Certainly democrats can be very self-righteous or indignant. But the key is organizing, putting out the righteous/indignance message and getting others to feel that way too, that is where the GOP excels, in my opinion. I suspect that there are a whole lot of races in the house and senate which were pretty close,enough for 5% to make a big difference, but I do not have any data right now. Anyway it is an interesting question and if you come across any info on this, please let me know. By the way, liberals howl when they are upset, haven't you heard our former Vermont gov lately?
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 03/21/2005 at 01:22 PM.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Over the past ten years, political conversation has evolved from a pseudointellectual argument into an emotional argument and emotions simply sell much more effectively than an intellectual argument to most people. Democrats try to do this, but do it much less effectively than the GOP, especially the house.

    ZING!
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv
    ZING!
    What is happening is that rational argument is finally having a chance to be heard. The end of the media monopoly has really changed the body politic.

    The bottom line is that liberalism can't compete in the arena of ideas, and is losing. Badly.
  12. #32  
    I may disagree with you on how it happened, but the bottom line is you guys won, and you deserve to feel good about your ideas and your party.
    Cheers.
  13.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I may disagree with you on how it happened, but the bottom line is you guys won, and you deserve to feel good about your ideas and your party.
    Cheers.
    Not only do I feel good about the victory...I feel GREAT about your loss (It's a Republican thing.)

    Cell, and I do appreciate you engaging in this conversation. While I disagree with you on many levels, you at least have the courage of your convictions.
  14. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    The bottom line is that liberalism can't compete in the arena of ideas, and is losing. Badly.
    I think it's more accurate to say that with liberals/Democrats basically controlling the country from the 30s to the 70s, and with academia and the main stream media squarely on their side, they no longer had to compete in the arena of ideas. They could just demonize their opponents and let liberal courts implement the parts of their agenda that they couldn't get past voters. It was easy and it worked, and the left got intellectually lazy. This 1995 quote from Dan Rather leading off the CBS Evening News is a perfect example of how the left came to substitute smears for substantive argument:

    “The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor.”

    The situation has clearly changed over the past 20 years, but Democrats are still stuck in the past. If you look at just about every major dispute between the parties, the Democrats' arguments can basically be summed up as: Republicans are evil, child-starving, grandma-killing Nazis who want to destroy the constitution, the country, and then the planet. That just doesn't sell any longer. They're starting to figure it out though, and the pendulum will eventually swing the other way.
    Talldog
  15. MJSgl's Avatar
    Posts
    23 Posts
    Global Posts
    24 Global Posts
    #35  
    Great discussion!

    I am 26, just became "politically aware" around 9/11 (which I think has had and will continue to have a galvanizing affect on the thinking of my generation). The more I've learned, read, discussed, the more Republican/Conservative I have become. Even on issues I don't neccesarily agree with 100%, the Right's conlcusions seemed to be based on sounder premises, while the Left's platform is a mish-mash of ad hoc policies with one end in mind: holding on to power with their fingernails in whatever way possible.

    While I agree that the long term trend indicates the "Republican Revolution" has been, is, and will continue growing, and that this trend is not isolated, or desultory, there is one factor that I think that has accelerated and cemented the trend and which is not acknowledged as much as it should be: the W factor. I voted for Bush in 2000, while still a political neophyte. He was a Republican, believed in tax cuts (even as a neophyte, I understood the economic effects of tax cuts), he got my vote. Foriegn policy wasn't an issue: my generation had grown up in relative peace, though we didn't feel the Vietnam era antipathy toward a strong national defense. "Traditional values" seemed like a bunch of hogwash to me. Then 9/11 happened, and we realized history hadn't ended, we had only been on our own little vacation from it.

    GW's principled leadership has been simply inspiring. He may be a master politician, but he doesn't seem like he is as full of **** as many of the others. I believed in most of the GOP agenda before GW "grew" in office. But since 9/11, his arguments have resonated even more and his themes of responsibility, tradition, and individuality are a consistent thread in all of his policies, domestic and foreign. GWs principled leadership, in conjunction with my own awakening after 9/11 and subsequent thirst for knowledge and understanding of everything in the national political arena have cemented earlier conservative ideas and made me appreciate the logic of many others. The Democratic Party I have seen in the last couple years (granted, the only years I've really paid close attention to politics) has not been inspiring. Again, the only explanation I can see for their platform and policies is being anti-Bush/anti-GOP -- they have lost power and will do anything to get it back. The contentious 2000 election and the perception that 9/11 is the only reason Bush got re-elected (false in my opinion: Iraq was a HUGE hit to his popularity, but the economy -- MSM punditry nothwithstanding -- was roaring anyway by November, and without 9/11 it would have been even stronger) has magnified the left's madness as they go over the deep end trying to pursue their agenda -- power.

    So there's my two cents, rambling as it may be.

    PS - Cellmatrix, would that most Democrats were as gracious in defeat as you. You do not display the disdain or bitterness I have seen in nearly all other liberals. Unfortunately, you seem to be the exception and not the norm.

    PPS - How did the Bush/Kerry debates stack up against the Nixon/Kennedy debates? Was it really less rhetoric and more subtance back then than in the 2004 debates? There was a LOT of mudslinging in the campaign of 2004, but the actual debates seemed pretty civil and focused on ideas. They were also fairly entertaining and informative (although Bush got his *** whooped in the first two; conversely, he was really impressive in the last one.) However, I will grant the actual substance of the debates did -- at times -- seem to pander to the lowest common denominator. Were Kennedy and Nixon comparatively two intellectual giants gutting it out?
    Last edited by MJSgl; 03/22/2005 at 06:39 AM.
  16. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Not only do I feel good about the victory...I feel GREAT about your loss (It's a Republican thing.)

    Cell, and I do appreciate you engaging in this conversation. While I disagree with you on many levels, you at least have the courage of your convictions.
    Can't wait till that pendlum stops swinging and comes to rest in the middle.
  17. #37  
    the thread starter seems to have all of FOX News' talking points down. In so many words, these are slanted, accusing, rhetorical questions which assume the information contained within them to be self-evident. It's propaganda. I would expect more from someone studying politics since '80.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I may disagree with you on how it happened, but the bottom line is you guys won, and you deserve to feel good about your ideas and your party.
    Cheers.
    It's a shallow victory for me though. The GOP continues to drift from its ideals. This Terri Schiavo debacle is just the latest example. The Party of limited government and States rights seems to be lost on this issue.

    Other examples are expressed during campaigning. They seem more interested in being "Liberal Lite" than Conservative. Often what happens is if the Dems come out with an idea (say a prescription drug plan), instead of debating the issue, they put forth a less costly extreme. Government hasn't shrank. Despite the lunatic Liberal ranting that Republicans are slashing this, and shlashing that, nothing gets slashed. At best, they don't spend as much as someone wants, but things don't get slashed.

    Abortion, Gay marriage...the list goes on. These shouldn't even be issues. Stick to ideals of the Party. Smaller governemt, with less taxes. A strong defense. And the freedom to pursue ones dreams.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  19.    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by atnight
    the thread starter seems to have all of FOX News' talking points down. In so many words, these are slanted, accusing, rhetorical questions which assume the information contained within them to be self-evident. It's propaganda. I would expect more from someone studying politics since '80.
    WOW! I am cut to the quick with your fact filled rejoinder!
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    WOW! I am cut to the quick with your fact filled rejoinder!
    What an eloquent observation!

    It wasn't meant to be cutting, although your sarcasm is noted about my lack of punditry filled footnotes to address all twenty-plus or so of your fallacy laden accusations and republi-jargon. I had no intention my statement serving as a 'zinger', amidst heated debate.

    Here's my observation- Based on the inflammatory angle of your original post, I was SURPRISED anyone met you in serious debate.
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions