BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?

Subject: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:43 PM

You must be a NY Times subscriber to read this article about what happens to the GOP if Bush loses, but here is an excerpt:

"For starters, Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's powerful political adviser, would no longer be called a boy genius, although party insiders insist there would be less blame of him and Mr. Bush than might be expected. Assuming that the party hangs on to the Senate, Bill Frist, the majority leader, would emerge as one of the most important Republicans in the country. So would Senator John McCain of Arizona, Mr. Bush's onetime nemesis. Paul Wolfowitz, the neo-conservative who urged the president into war with Iraq, would not."

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:57 PM

"Rolling Stone" interviewer:

What do you think of Karl Rove? Is he an evil genius?

John Kerry:

I don't know him. I've met him once. I'll tell you November 3rd.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:09 PM

Uh, Jack I think you're posting to the wrong thread. This thread isn't about the Rolling Stone interview with Kerry, it is about a NY Times article about the Republican party after the election.

Would you please try and keep on topic, and save the quote for the appropriate thread (ie the Rolling Stone interview thread)?

Thanks very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:15 PM

This Republican will look forward to Kerry, who, in addition to being somebody other than the clueless yahoo who alleges to head the country, has some good ideas, and is both able and willing to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:19 PM

GUEST, your unfounded arrogance is very funny.

What I said on the other thread you started only more so. Do you think you have some exclusive franchise for cutting and pasting?

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:22 PM

No of course I don't think that Jack. I just thought it would be interesting to discuss the NY Times articles. It changes the subject from the same old shit, to something more future oriented. Something different, less tiresome.

You seem to have a problem with that. What is it you want to discuss in this and the What if Kerry Loses thread instead, Jack? You seem to need to hijack the threads. So what is it you wish us to discuss instead?

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:28 PM

You people really should know by now that I never have any problems in deciding what I want to talk about. Everyone else should be willing to talk about it as well. This is my thread. So are all the other threads when I decide they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:32 PM

I will be saying the same thing I said when people were complaining about Clinton: I didn't vote for him. Don't bitch to me.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:48 PM

Actually, I'm still trying to wrap my head around this:

"Republicans note that when the party lost in 1960, 1976 and 1992, conservatives could mount the argument that moderates - Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford and George H. W. Bush - had been given their chance in the party and had lost it. But if Mr. Bush goes down on Nov. 2, it would be the first time that a clear conservative candidate who Republicans had expected to win was defeated."

I just can't imagine how ANYONE could consider Nixon and Bush I moderates! I mean, when I think Republican moderate, I'm not even thinking John McCain, much less Arlen Spector! I'm thinking Jim Jeffords, who defected and cost the Republicans control of the Senate, Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

But Nixon a moderate?

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: pdq
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 06:10 PM

GUEST -

I have thought about this at various times and believe the following: Ronald Reagan was the only "conservative" president ever. That is one out of forty three. He is the only one who turned the country to the right in a long and continuing journey left. We have moved far to the Socialist side and away from the Libertarian vision of the men who wrote the constitution.

Chaffee, Snow and Spector are "RINOS" = "Republicans In Name Only". They quietly vote with the Republicans on "safe" issues or when the vote count will not be close. On tough issues, they retreat to the safety of Democrat fold. Look at the rollcall of voters in Clinton's impeachment to see who some of the other RINOS are.

Nixon? Many call him a liberal. EPA, Dept. of Education, price controls...

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 06:20 PM

Spoken like a true neo-con there, pdq. I have no doubt in my mind that to people who are using the neo-cons as true north on their political compass, Nixon looks like a moderate, and Olympia Snowe looks like a socialist.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:07 PM

I note there are already disagreements about how to count the votes creeping in. What is it with you guys, surely you should have sorted that out after all the controversy last time.

How can the the most advanced country on the earth not be able to count votes.

I'm getting the distinct impression whoever wins, the first thing is going to be the losing side saying they were cheated.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:20 PM

GUEST, I wasn't trying to hijack your thread. I was including what Kerry had recently said about the very thought you expressed in your cut and paste. I thought that was relevant. I still do.

I'm sorry I got angry with you. My blood sugar was low. I was irratable.

I guess I shouldn't have responded at all I broke my long standing policy not to answer guests. I don't mind discussing things with you but If you are going to be as touchy as that, I don't see the point.

I really wish you people (GUESTS) would label yourselves so that I would know exactly who to ignore instead of ingoring all of you.

Sorry for the interuptions. Now you can go back to moderating your thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:33 PM

How can the the most advanced country on the earth not be able to count votes.

I'd call it calculated incompetence. Incompetence with a purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:35 PM

If Bush loses, Republicans will still have all the real freedoms they have now....some of them might pay a few more taxes, but most of what they do will be unchanged. They can go to church, wave the flag, buy guns, NOT have abortions, invest in the stock market, listen to Rush Limbaugh and buy heath insurance from their favorite provider.

I wish I could say that Democrats will have the freedoms they desire if Bush WINS...

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:46 PM

BillD,

I would think that if Bush wins, Democrats would still be able to not go to church, not wave the flag, not buy guns, have abortions, not invest in the stock market, not listen to Rush, and not buy health insurance from their favorite provider, if they wished.

Regardless of who wins, some of them might pay a few more taxes...

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:04 PM

I don't agree about abortions, Bruce, I think there is some question about that; otherwise I agree completely.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:09 PM

I doubt very much if a Bush administration will PAY for them, but I do think that the right of choice will remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:13 PM

I think he is going to do his best to overturn Roe V Wade.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:20 PM

I do not think that his best will be enough, to change the present law.



This morning's Washington Post camoe out supporting Kerry. There was a very good article, stating the reasons. I found it most intersting, although I did not agree with all the conclusions about Kerry.

It listed the good and bad points of BOTH candidates, and I found that I agreed with them entirely about Bush, on both the strengths and weaknesses. Where I differed was in the estimation of Kerry's strengths- Several of the points they listed were very much in doubt in my mind.

In spite of my personnel disagreement with the conclusion they reach, I can recommend it as a reasonable assessment of the two candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: pdq
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:25 PM

GUEST -

The term 'neo-con' is meaningless and is usually thrown out by people who want to avoid issues. Conservatives are not hard to find, it's the liberals who are MIA in the midst of the "Anybody but Bush" days we are now enjoying.

Jeffords, Snowe and Chaffee are not Socialists, they are nothing because the stand for nothing. They move left-to-right-to-left like blades of grass in the changing winds.   

Nixon was quite liberal on some issues and a pillar of humanity when compared to Lyndon Johnson. I am not completely convinced that LBJ was behind the Kennedy assasination, but that is probable. Taped conversations show him to be the coldest most calculating president in the last century.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:08 PM

You won't get any argument about me about LBJ.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:49 PM

"The term 'neo-con' is meaningless"

I use it to refer to the principle boosters of the PNAC, I find it usefull shorthand to use that term rather than listing them.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:56 PM

NEo-con is a genuine term referring to the more extreme variant of activist conservativism typically associated with the extreme right. Their attributes, generally, include a strong reactionary support of their party and its affiliations with large business concerns, a tendency to fascistic and authoritarian interpretations, and an aggressive desire to gain more power. Neocons tend to be more ready than others to resort to military force, disregard the impact of their actions on the environment and often on others' lives, and tend to dramatize authoritarian concepts typical of people in anger.

These are all generalizations, of course, and on an individual basis these attributes might be greater or lesser, but the attributes usually associated with the class are roughly as described.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: bbc
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:07 PM

This Republican will bow to the will of the majority for this coming term & will continue to support her country & pray for those in power.

best,

bbc

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:08 PM

If there is no conspiracy in the US government, why then is the Report from the Warren Commission such a flawed document?

PS I don't think LBJ was involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:19 PM

brucie,

How is it flawed? Or are you saying that any document that does not come to the conclusion you desire MUST be flawed?

Just wondering

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:50 AM

Thanks Bruce. I read the Washington Post article. I agree with you about Bush. They are not kind to Kerry I'm curious about what you disagreed with about him.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 02:02 AM

If Bush loses my faith in the American people will be restored...especially if they continue to put the pressure on Kerry.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 07:15 AM

I think if Bush loses, we may well see an even more regressive Republican candidate in 2008. The article linked to above shows that the Republican party leadership simply will not tolerate moderates in their midst. Horrified as I was by it, watching the RNC last summer and listening to Republican politician after Republican politician say over and over they wanted to drive the moderate faction out of the party FOR GOOD, I don't hold out much hope for that party. I know a lot of people would like to think John McCain would save the party from themselves, but I just don't see that happening.

I would LOVE to be proved wrong about that though. However, the divisions in US society are truly the cultural divisions. The moderate leaning Republicans have all been driven out of the party ideologically anyway, because of the fanatic Christian faction of the party which Bush leads (but oddly, Cheney doesn't represent or even pander to).

Let us just hope they throw the bum out.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:08 AM

What will the Republicans do if Kerry is elected? They'll do the same thing they did when Clinton was elected. They'll spend the next four years--eight years, if necessary--investigating him.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:36 AM

They will spend millions trying to discredit and slander him, just as they spent millions discrediting and slandering Clinton. Why they keep mixing slander and innuendo in with the political process escapes me, though. Nixon used to do that frequently -- he had a whole enemies list. Kerry was on it because he stood up and organized the Veterans Against the War and led the protest at Washington Mall.

But it is a wrong-headed way to acheive purposes.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 11:43 PM

The Dow - will take a 2000 point HIT - within 60 days.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:40 AM

If Bush loses, he will return to the ranch in Crawfor an be a witness to Kerry destroying the country. Simple.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 08:37 AM

DoygR:

That is an unfounded and vitriolic extrapolation. In fact, a wild-eyed, arm-waving sort of hyperbolic extrapolation, several LONG steps away from fact.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 10:44 AM

Yeah, just like you've been behaving for months, Amos. Get a grip, buddy. You are foaming at the mouth again at the Republican in your midst.

Did you expect DougR to say something different? He's a Republican. Of course that is what he would say, because it is what he believes. That is no reason to bite his head off like that.

You Kerry fanatics are REALLY over the top and out of control.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:12 PM

Excuse me, Guest -- I am a Kerry promoter and defender. I think he deserves it. I am not a fanatic. But there only two candidates in the race as far as the race for the Presidency is concerned. Other candidates such as Nader or hotly engaged in a race for rightness, or column inches, or Best Regret or some such.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST,Disgusted Catter
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:28 PM

Actually Amos, you are behaving like a fanatic. I just had this same conversation with Art Thieme, who was doing the same thing over here.

There are a lot of people here at Mudcat who plan to vote for Kerry, Amos. Yet only a handful of them are behaving like you and Art.

A couple of you ARE behaving like fanatic nut cases for Kerry. Honest. Your friends wouldn't lie to you about a thing like that.

Why not go offline for awhile and calm yourself down? Why not get out of the house, and go work on getting the vote out for Kerry, and get all your frustration and negative energy out that way?

But whatever you do Amos, PLEASE stop raging at everyone who doesn't share your political beliefs and opinions. It isn't fair, and it is hurting the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:37 PM

Thanks for the rhetoric, Guest. Once in a great while, something comes up which is worth exerting myself for.

You do not care whether Bush or Kerry is elected, because you have cloaked what is basically a deep apathy with a fine filigreed cloak of rationalization about principles, and the long view of things, and how they are just the same.

I see the difference clearly, and I know that ONE DAY of having Kerry instead of Bush -- there ar eno other options at the moment -- in the office of C-i-C could save the lives of innocent people.

That is sothing worth fighting for, and if ithe mathematics of that equation are not clear to some folks, that does not mean I should change my appreciation of the elements in play or how they stack up. Because one voice can change a few others, and these in turn can make the difference between Bush and Kerry being voted into office. And that, in turn, could just save someone's life.

It may be someone I have not met yet -- but I will not back down on trying to make it happen. It might be an Iraqi teenage girl, or an American boy from Arkansas or Maine, or a British soldier from Yorkshire. The life is worth saving. Sving the life is worth voting for. I am tired of having pictures of bloody ruined corpses being laid at my doorstep, and hearing people defend the leader who intiated the warfare that caused them.

If I have stepped on anyone's toes with this piece of rhetoric, please accept my apologies.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:44 PM

No offence, Amos. I've come to expect this type of response.
My opinion was invited, and that's what I wrote. It's only an opinion.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:53 PM

It is a pretty piss-poor opinion, DOug. How do you think Kerry could destroy the country any worse than Bush already is doing? By not declaring enough wars?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:18 PM

Just for the record, I'm reading Amos's reasoning and conclusions and agree with it all the way. I suspect that I'm not alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:42 PM

During the Clinton administration Sadaam regained control of his country, Al Queda came to power, North Korea got nukes, and Iran continued on their path to WMD's.   Should Kerry be elected it is my sincere belief that he will succomb to special interests and pull out of Iraq prematurely while declaring victory.

The net result will be an increase in world wide terrorism and attacks in the USA killing thousands or possibly millions of people. As Vladamir Putin said "If Kerry is elected it is a victory for the terrorists"

That is my sincer opionion.   You may disagree.   No one will know for sure until/if it happens.   You may be willing to bet the lives of your family and friends on a kerry victory.   I am not.

If Bush loses, I see Rudy G. as a strong moderate choice for 2008.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:45 PM

Thanks, Ebbie. I know I get strident sometimes. I will apologize for any discomfort I have caused. But the ground truth isn't any different after I do so.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: grumpy al
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:58 PM

the world will be a marginally safer place to live

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 02:00 PM

I think it was Saul Alinsky who said something along the lines of "It is impossible to make a man understand what is wrong, when his paycheck is contingent upon him not understanding."

No offense intended, Amos and Ebbie, but IMO, that is the very dynamic Kerry's Anybody But Bush supporters are engaging in right now.

It's a head in the sand, don't look any further than November 2nd sort of attitude, and I don't think it serves the best interests of the nation. It does, however, serve the interests of political party partisanship. We are not a divided nation, IMO. What we have is a divided Congress, and political party partisanship rampaging out of control. The only people who benefit from the Congress and White House performing as our dancing monkeys, is the media echo chamber, which keeps encouraging the monkeys to dance more and more furiously.

But this partisan war, like the TV reality show, won't last forever. If nothing else, American audiences just don't have that sort of attention span.

Lots of us have family members, friends, work colleagues, and acquaintances in both political parties, network admonitions to the contrary. There really are Democrats in Texas, and Republicans in Massachusetts, and no one has (yet) been killed by family, friends, or work colleagues for their political allegiances in the upcoming election.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 02:05 PM

Fancy language, Guest, but you have not made the effort to get me, at least, to "understand what is wrong" in any terms that communicate clearly, and not for lack of capability to understand on my part.

I do fade out on unbounded geralities, and arm-waving (despite doing my share).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Genie
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 04:10 AM

"Ebbie
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:18 PM

Just for the record, I'm reading Amos's reasoning and conclusions and agree with it all the way. I suspect that I'm not alone. "

Again, just to be on record:
I couldn't have said it better, Amos, my friend!


If Bush wins, things will probably continue pretty much the way they have for at least 4 years -- more and more consolidation of the media (and power in general) in the hands of fewer and fewer mega-corporations), erosions of our civil liberties, a more militaristic, imperialisti bent on the part of the US, and a decided shift in policy toward the inclinations of the religious far right. The SCOTUS is likely to be peopled by several fairly young, extreme right wingers (as opposed to strict constructionists), such that a radical right wing philosophy will dominate the SCOTUS for decades.
By contrast, if Kerry wins, the country is likely to be far more bipartisan and moderate, if only because he will almost certainly have the House, and probably the Senate, plus the SCOTUS controlled by the opposing party/philosophy. Kerry will HAVE TO "work across the aisle," even if he were not already inclined to do so. Bush, as we've seen over the past 4 years, will likely interpret a skin-of-the-teeth victory as a "mandate" to push an extreme partisan agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 10:12 AM

If Bush loses, I hope Dems consolidate their gains by hunting down all Republican die-hards and rounding them up into camps. There, they should be tortured, if not out and out gassed to death. Most Republicans are either parastical stock broker types, rich morons, neo-fascistic racist warmongers or moronic Christian fundamentalists with I.Q's below 90. If they can round up all 40/50 million of 'em, the US will be much better off.

Subject: RE: BS: Republicans: What if Bush Loses?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 06:59 PM

It will be sufficient that Bush loses; and he will lose.