Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: A very 'telling' yardstick re true voter sentiment

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default A very 'telling' yardstick re true voter sentiment

    Remember, McCain Feingold has outlawed huge corporate donations of old, so political parties now have to raise money one supporter at a time with a $2,000 maximum individual contribution ...

    Of course, George Soros can still donate $10 million dollars+ to the democratic/liberal leaning MoveOn.org. But 527 organizations do NOT necessarily reflect the views of the party's majority, rather they reflect the views of their millionaire contributor(s).

  2. #2
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: A very 'telling' yardstick re true voter sentiment

    I found this interesting:

    ...a report filed in July by the party's executive committee to the Federal Election Commission showed it spent $120,000 more than it has taken the first six months of that year, including a $30,000 deficit for June.

    They're running their party the same way the country is run.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  3. #3
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: A very 'telling' yardstick re true voter sentiment

    The country currently run by "tax cut then spend" Republicans?

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: A very 'telling' yardstick re true voter sentiment

    At the risk of allowing this thread to get derailed, there are a number of reasons that spending has been too high for the last several years ... beginning with 9/11, it's recessionary effects on the US economy which required massive pump priming measure to avoid a depression, it's demand for greatly increased spending for security both at home and abroad etc. I'll totally agree that GWB's decision to institute a totally new entitlement program i.e. prescription drugs for seniors was a fiscal shocker, but then again a 'price' had to be paid for re-election of republican majorities (and I might add a price that pales when compared to Great Society programs, medicaid/medicare programs etc. brought to us by Democrats).

    Back on topic, the Democrat's difficulty in raising funds from individual contributors would tend to indicate to me that the Democratic position on many of today's issues is not being very well received by average citizens in either red or blue states. I would add that some of the outgrowths of the Schiavo case probably played a significant role in the Democratic party's particular difficulties in the state of Florida. If Katherine Harris wins the upcoming election for US Senate, which is likely, Florida will then solidly become a 'red' state. If two or three other Democratic Senators are also unseated in the 2006 election, then the Democratic filibuster technique will be history. Verrrrrrrrry Interrrrrrresting !

  5. #5
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: A very 'telling' yardstick re true voter sentiment

    I'm not trying to make a point here except that things just aren't so neatly gift-wrapped for our political sensibilities.

    "Great Society" legislation - started by Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat.
    Next eight years - Republican Presidents.
    Four years of Democrat President.
    Next 12 years - Republican Presidents.

    That's 20 years of Republican Administrations and four years of a Democratic Administration. Great Society programs continued (with minor laughable burps, like the Reagan Administration trying momentarily to cut back on school lunches by calling ketchup a nutritious product).

    Then eight years of a Democratic Administration. Welfare reform comes down in a big way, and the budget gets balanced.

    Ya just never know.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Ana_217's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    76
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: A very 'telling' yardstick re true voter sentiment

    Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.......?

  7. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: A very 'telling' yardstick re true voter sentiment

    "Great Society" legislation - started by Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat.
    Next eight years - Republican Presidents.
    Four years of Democrat President.
    Next 12 years - Republican Presidents.

    That's 20 years of Republican Administrations and four years of a Democratic Administration. Great Society programs continued (with minor laughable burps, like the Reagan Administration trying momentarily to cut back on school lunches by calling ketchup a nutritious product).

    Then eight years of a Democratic Administration. Welfare reform comes down in a big way, and the budget gets balanced.

    Ya just never know.
    Well, we DO know ... it just isn't publicized. The point being that it was only the Johnson administration which had a fully 'co-operative' Democratic house and Senate, and the Reagan administration which had an 'almost' co-operative bi-partisan house and Senate. The Clinton administration's welfare reform was driven by Republicans in the house and Senate. Bush 1's tax increases were driven by Democrats in the house and Senate renegging on promised spending cuts.

    As can clearly be seen with GWB versus today's 45 Senate seat Democratic minority, 'modern' presidents actually have much less real power to implement changes in policy than say 'early' presidents. I would suggest comparing GWB's current situation re the congress and courts to say Andrew Jackson's administration for a clear view of just how much things have changed.

  8. #8
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: A very 'telling' yardstick re true voter sentiment

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    I'm not trying to make a point here except that things just aren't so neatly gift-wrapped for our political sensibilities.

    "Great Society" legislation - started by Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat.
    Next eight years - Republican Presidents.
    Four years of Democrat President.
    Next 12 years - Republican Presidents.

    That's 20 years of Republican Administrations and four years of a Democratic Administration. Great Society programs continued (with minor laughable burps, like the Reagan Administration trying momentarily to cut back on school lunches by calling ketchup a nutritious product).

    Then eight years of a Democratic Administration. Welfare reform comes down in a big way, and the budget gets balanced.

    Ya just never know.
    JZ, I've noticed similar things myself. It seems like a lot of times leaders do the opposite of what you'd expect.
    Democrats are supposed to be commie-loving, pacificists. Yet it was Democrats that led us into Vietnam. Republicans are supposedly war-mongerers, yet it was a Republican that negotiated a peace treaty (surrender?) that got us out of Vietnam. At one point didn't Nixon try to institute some type of price controls? Strange idea from a Republican. When Reagan was elected, those on the left openly predicted the imminent arrival of World War III. But I'd bet more American soldiers came under fire in various, "peacekeeping" missions during Clinton's 8 years than during Reagan's.

    I had a professor once point these things out to me. He theorized the reason for this is that presidents feel a deep need to prove their critics wrong. Clinton, as a Democrat, felt a need to prove that he could begin to reign in social services spending and that he was militarily tough. So we got welfare reform and our troops scurrying all over the world doing "peacekeeping". If a Republican had signed the same welfare reform bill Clinton did, those on the left would still be screaming about it. On the other side, it's no coincidence that Bush, a Republican, called himself a "compassionate conservative" and then set about increasing medicaid spending and has yet to veto a single spending bill. I don't totally agree with the theory, but if it is correct, the only way we'll ever reform Social Security is with a democrat in the white house.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-09-2008, 09:53 AM
  2. chart of the week - stock market sentiment
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-16-2008, 01:21 AM
  3. anti-whore sentiment
    By trashnready in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 10-13-2004, 02:19 PM
  4. Strip Club Voter Registration
    By Richard_Head in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-17-2004, 09:01 PM
  5. Voter-Purge List Made Public
    By Isis in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-02-2004, 08:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •