» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 09/28/04 at 2:03 am
More Republicans, fewer swing voters.
By: Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
Where have all the swing voters gone? The conventional answer is that the nation has become more politically polarized and swing voters have taken sides. There's some truth in this, but there's a better explanation. Swing voters have become republicans over the years. And though the trend accelerated after the 2000 elections and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it's scarcely been mentioned in the 2004 presidential race. It gives President Bush political options John Kerry doesn't have. And it makes Bush's reelection more likely.
The new republican strength means the President can rely heavily on his base, especially since Republicans are lopsidedly in favor of his reelection. Kerry can't rely on his base because democratic voters are less solidly behind him. Don't believe me? A new Zogby poll out just a few days ago shows that among registered democrats, 15% support Bush for reelection, while only 3% of registered republicans support the election of Kerry. So Bush can appeal to his base without alienating what's left of swing voters. He manages this by stressing a positive message. But the democratic base is far more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry, so Kerry must nurture it with vehement attacks on the president. The problem is most swing voters tend to be attracted by positive appeals, not negative assults.
The shift in swing voters to the republican party appears in poll after poll. Postelection surveys in 1988 showed 42% of voters identified themselves as republicans or republican leaning. By 2002 Republican ID had risen to 48.5%, as independents dropped from 16% to 7%. Democratic ID, by the way, also rose, but by a much smaller amount, from 42% in 1988 to 45.5% in 2002. And ABC News poll showed republicans plus leaners increasing from 37% in 1981 to 43% in 2003, as democrats fell by 4% between 1981 and 2003. Independents fell from 9% to 8%. Why so small? Republican strategists argue, credibly, there's often a two-step transition in party-switching. Democrats become independents, as independents (and many former democrats) become republicans.
Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup poll, sats he doesn't know if swing voters are drifting to the republican party. But he says, Gallup numbers certainly suggest it. Among registered voters, the percentage saying they would consider voting for someone other then their candidate plummeted from 62% in June 1992, all the way to 18% in June 2004. During this period, Gallup found Republican ID had risen in 41 states, from a juimp of 13 percentage points in Missouri to one point in Iowa. Democratic ID rose in only 6 states.
Both Gallup and Pew Research Center have found that the number of solid republican states growing, a phenomenon that wouldn't occur unless swing voters were moving to the right.
-The American people have spoken, democrats are wrong for America. Down with liberals.
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 09/28/04 at 2:11 am
If more Americans are supportive of Bush and his agenda it proves one thing, John Q. Public has gotten smarter. He's learned to stop shooting himself in the foot, and to start shooting himself in both feet. God help him, man can't!
:D
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 09/28/04 at 2:17 am
If more Americans are supportive of Bush and his agenda it proves one thing, John Q. Public has gotten smarter. He's learned to stop shooting himself in the foot, and to start shooting himself in both feet. God help him, man can't!
:D
Joe Six-pack has spoken! John Kerry is wrong for defense. Notice the new avatar? Support Al Qaeda, Kerry 2004.
And finally I have a message to ALL the registered democrats who aren't sure if they should vote Kerry or third party/independent:
Go Ahead- Vote Nader
2004
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: philbo on 09/28/04 at 3:42 am
John Kerry is wrong for defense. Notice the new avatar? Support Al Qaeda, Kerry 2004.
Face it: GWB has done more for Al Qaeda recruitment than any other single person in the world, ever.
Terrorism in Iraq? None exported as yet... but it's growing at an unprecedented rate, so you can guarantee there will be Iraqi terrorists coming this way to cause more suffering and loss. Just because you have an electorate that puts two and two together to make three, who for some blinkered reason think that because you're fighting in Iraq it makes the home nation safe, it don't make 'em right.
If GWB is re-elected, and international terrorism decreases as a result of his policies, then I will gladly eat humble pie and say I was wrong - but the evidence of his past four years does not bode well.
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 09/28/04 at 4:02 am
- but the evidence of his past four years does not bode well.
Maybe terror has grown, maybe not. All I know is i'm glad we now have a president who is taking the fight to them, unlike Clinton when the World Trade Center was bombed, or when the Cole was bombed. Bush is doing something, and we haven't been hit since. I think the terrorist now know not to attack while a republican is in office. All Clinton did was send a few cruise missiles in those countries and call the problem fixed. Terror thrived under then President Clinton. Plus the Zogby poll, which you can read at www.zogby.com, says that 75% of Americans think President Bush would handle terror better, you can't get much better than 3/4ths in a country as politically polarized as America.
Now to be fair, I think Kerry would handle some issues better then President Bush would, but the things Bush handles better are more important to me. Just so their is no confusion here is who I think will handle what better:
Terror-Bush
Iraq-Bush
Education-Bush
Taxes-Bush
Health Care-Kerry
Social security-Kerry
Environment-Kerry
And I'm unsure who to choose under economy. President Bush has lost jobs, but I'm not sure if I can blame him since we lost over 1 million jobs within 90 days of the 9/11 attacks. GDP looks good, and so does unemployment. But people are now working at jobs that pay less, yet the economy is picking up. So I remain unsure on the economy.
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: Davester on 09/28/04 at 5:02 am
Maybe terror has grown, maybe not. All I know is i'm glad we now have a president who is taking the fight to them, unlike Clinton when the World Trade Center was bombed, or when the Cole was bombed. Bush is doing something, and we haven't been hit since. I think the terrorist now know not to attack while a republican is in office.ÂÂÂ
You need to realize that "winning" the war on terror only constitutes in any practical sense the holding of the barbarians at the gates. In any political discussion, sure, I'm willing to look generations into the future in order to define goals, but why start with this? We kill more of our own by proxy of our commercial and industrial needs than terrorists ever could.
Start with something small: what kills more people in the United States, cigarettes or terrorists? What costs American society more in terms of lost labor and resources, mortality, and dollars - diet or terrorism? What is the greater threat to the prosperity of future generations of Americans? (That is, to the prosperity of our posterity?) Debt or terrorism? What is more important, profit today or health tomorrow?
Stale but relevant rhetoric from the Iraqi Bush Adventure suggests that American policy decisions regarding Arab and Muslim worlds (as well as other spheres of society) inspire at least as many terrorists as the War on Terror removes from operation. Our present actions are raising new legions, and somebody will have to deal with them sometime, whether by the gun or exchequer.
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: philbo on 09/28/04 at 5:16 am
All I know is i'm glad we now have a president who is taking the fight to them, unlike Clinton when the World Trade Center was bombed, or when the Cole was bombed. Bush is doing something, and we haven't been hit since. I think the terrorist now know not to attack while a republican is in office.
"Taking the fight to them" is not a description I'd use for what's happening in Iraq - Afghanistan, yes: there was conclusive evidence of terrorist training camps, and a government which supported that happening; Iraq, no. ÂÂÂ
What we have seen is a pretty concerted campaign to make the US public believe that action in Iraq is linked to terrorism, but in this case there was a complete lack of evidence of terrorist activity before invasion (unless you count a bit from the Kurds - but hey, weren't they on our side when the fighting started?), but growing support for the terror groups in Iraq now.  It would be a pretty invidious position for Kerry to find himself in, though, were he to be elected: the one thing that could not be done is a simple withdrawal, as it would make things many times worse.  Basically, whoever gets in is going to have to dig themselves out of a big hole, so it would certainly be fair if Bush is left to face the s**t he's got himself into.
Start with something small: what kills more people in the United States, cigarettes or terrorists? What costs American society more in terms of lost labor and resources, mortality, and dollars - diet or terrorism? What is the greater threat to the prosperity of future generations of Americans? (That is, to the prosperity of our posterity?) Debt or terrorism? What is more important, profit today or health tomorrow?
I've been trying to make that point for months now: another example for you:- if the US car-buying public bought normal cars rather than SUVs, the number of lives saved per year would be of the same order as died in the WTC... but it ain't a glamorous scare-mongering news story. People have no real perception of risk.
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 09/28/04 at 5:20 am
 ÂÂÂ
  Start with something small: what kills more people in the United States, cigarettes or terrorists? What costs American society more in terms of lost labor and resources, mortality, and dollars - diet or terrorism? What is the greater threat to the prosperity of future generations of Americans? (That is, to the prosperity of our posterity?) Debt or terrorism? What is more important, profit today or health tomorrow?
Start with: Which one is voluntary, cigarettes or terrorists? Which one is voluntary, diet or terrorism?
Smoking for 30 years is different then just standing in one place at the wrong time.
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 09/28/04 at 5:28 am
"Taking the fight to them" is not a description I'd use for what's happening in Iraq - Afghanistan, yes: there was conclusive evidence of terrorist training camps, and a government which supported that happening; Iraq, no. ÂÂÂ
First off, be honest, are you glad Saddam is gone?
Second, look up how Saddam was clearly training terrorists at Salman Pak. There are eyewitness accounts naming names, talking about all the training that went on there. It was known throughout Iraq, especially by the Iraqi Elite Republican Guard.
Some good reading material, Philbo, on this would be: ''The Connection: How Al Qaeda's collaboration with Saddam Hussein has endangered America'' written by Stephen F. Hayes.
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: philbo on 09/28/04 at 5:56 am
Am I glad he's gone? He's a bad man who I wouldn't want running my country, but he ain't the worst dictator out there. Whether he's in power in Iraq or not is not really the issue, the question should be "are things better now that he's not?" The answer to that one is still in the balance, and could go either way. But invading a sovereign country because we don't like the guy who's running it is just the sort of thing we used to complain that the USSR did... it's hypocrisy on a global scale.
Saddam would have been dead in a year or two, maybe five, anyway - I think invading when we did was an idiotic waste of lives and money for no valid reason whatsoever.
According to a review of the book you quote, it uses Gilmore's stories from the Telegraph as source material:
1. In April 2003 two newspapers-one in Toronto and one in Britain-published stories about a document their reporters found in the rubble of Iraq's intelligence headquarters after the fall of Baghdad. This document shows proof of a meeting between Iraqi intelligence and a highly placed al Qaeda operative in 1998.
... I remember the initial reporting of this, and how a lot of people were incredibly sceptical that they happened across such a significant memo in an office that held nothing else that was relevant or connected: the word "planted" was bandied about, but obviously nothing could be proven either way.
Re Salman Pak, this quote has been attributed to Scott Ritter:
"Defectors talked about a terrorist training camp south of Bagdad in
Salman Pak where they train people to take over airplanes conveniently
in groups of four and five armed with knives. Amazing how this
information came out after September 11. It's not true. I've been to
that terrorist training camp. It's not a terrorist training camp, it's
a hostage rescue camp put in place in the 1980s by by the British
government to support Saddam Hussein because any nation that has a
national airlines has an assault force capable of conducting hostage
rescue of aircraft that have been subject to hijacking. We have it.
Iraq has it. That's what Salman Pak is plain and simple."
So it isn't as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. I also do not believe we should be invading a sovereign nation *then* trying to find evidence as to why we did it - would you like to be locked up in prison while the police go through all your stuff trying to find the reason why you've been locked away?
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: philbo on 09/28/04 at 6:50 am
PS... Another quote from one of the book reviews:
Do you really believe the authors had access to more classified information than the 9/11 Commission created by the President of the United States? The 9/11 Commission report clearly shows there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
This book attempts to dismiss the clear evidence outlined in the 9/11 Commission report, but fails to provide verfiable facts. It might be worth a checkout at the local library, if you really need to believe in a connection. Otherwise, it is clearly not worth the time.
This book should not have been published, and is definitely a waste of paper.
...so was the 9-11 commission hoodwinked, wrong or simply stupid?
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: McDonald on 09/28/04 at 10:17 am
Please, Philbo, you're causing poor GW's head to spin. Besides, I think we are forgetting about the real issue here: <sarcasm> the fact that Kerry's skin is turning orange!!! </sarcasm>
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 09/28/04 at 3:44 pm
The pro-Bush guys always ask, "Are you glad Saddam is gone?"
I don't know anybody who isn't. The question is, what now? Donald Rumsfeld, who should have been fired months ago, is slowly admitting the plans for elections in Iraq are going awry. There has never been "democracy" in the territories collectively called Iraq. That doesn't mean the inhabitants as human beings are incapable of establishing democracy, it means it will be very difficult and take exacting circumstances which are not present there now. There is no political stability in Iraq. Don't be surprised if another "strongman" emerges from the quagmire with promises to eject the Americans and restore Iraq to greatness. I'll he'll require is unquestioning obedience and loyalty, which will seem a small price after a few more years of occupation, humiliation, and destruction.
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: Don Carlos on 09/28/04 at 4:02 pm
Joe Six-pack has spoken! John Kerry is wrong for defense. Notice the new avatar? Support Al Qaeda, Kerry 2004.
And finally I have a message to ALL the registered democrats who aren't sure if they should vote Kerry or third party/independent:
                         Go Ahead- Vote Nader
                              2004
Yea, noticed your new avitar, which I find highly offensive. You imply that Kerry is cowardly and unpatriotic, which is an absolute crock. You are certainy free to believe that Bush will do a better job fighting Al Quida (Good Lord, Al Quida attacked us, lets invade Iraq), and while your logic baffles me, oh well... But to suggest that Kerry is either unpatriotic or cowardly is just rediculous.
While I would have refrained from raising the issue, since you have, I will. IM not so HO I think Lil' georgie is the coward, and that his invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists than Al Quida could ever have. His adventure has made us less secure, and less able to confront the real terrorists. If he is reelected, there will be a draft within the next 6 months.
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 09/28/04 at 7:45 pm
Yea, noticed your new avitar, which I find highly offensive. You imply that Kerry is cowardly and unpatriotic, which is an absolute crock. You are certainy free to believe that Bush will do a better job fighting Al Quida (Good Lord, Al Quida attacked us, lets invade Iraq), and while your logic baffles me, oh well... But to suggest that Kerry is either unpatriotic or cowardly is just rediculous.
While I would have refrained from raising the issue, since you have, I will. IM not so HO I think Lil' georgie is the coward, and that his invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists than Al Quida could ever have. His adventure has made us less secure, and less able to confront the real terrorists. If he is reelected, there will be a draft within the next 6 months.
I would file GWB's avatar under "silly" rather than "offensive" if it was not for the terrible truth about political propaganda. Here is an anectdote about LBJ that illustrates what I mean:
When Lyndon Johnson was running for the Senate against Texas incumbent Coke Stevenson, he and his advisors were looking for a way to undermine Stevenson, a beloved figure in Texas. LBJ said, "I know, we'll say 'Coke Stevenson f**ks pigs!'"
"Lyndon, said his advisors, that's just utter slander, we know it isn't true."
"We'll let him deny it!," Johnson replied.
As the more familiar quote from Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels goes, 'If you tell a big enough Lie, and keep on repeating it, in the end people will come to believe it.'
It doesn't matter what the opposition says. If you keep associate "Kerry" with "Al Quaida," "Kerry" with "Jane Fonda," and so forth, the Kerry campaign's denials will only serve to re-enforce the association, just as would Senator Stevenson's protest, "I DO NOT F**K PIGS!"
BTW, the Johnson senatorial campaign chose less vulgar tactics!
:P
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: CatwomanofV on 09/28/04 at 7:49 pm
You hit the nail on the head, Max. People are buying into Dubya's lies. That is what scary about it. And this was the dude who said that he was going to bring back "honesty" to the White House. Of course, that was a lie in itself. Of course at this stage of the game, if Duyba said that the sky was blue, I wouldn't believe it.
Cat
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 09/28/04 at 7:57 pm
You hit the nail on the head, Max. People are buying into Dubya's lies. That is what scary about it. And this was the dude who said that he was going to bring back "honesty" to the White House. Of course, that was a lie in itself. Of course at this stage of the game, if Duyba said that the sky was blue, I wouldn't believe it.
Cat
Dubya's people will say the sky may be "blue" now, but latest polls show it's only 3 points from turning "red"!
;D
Subject: Re: Swinging Right. In the past decade 41 states are more red, only 6 more blue.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 09/29/04 at 7:28 am
  You need to realize that "winning" the war on terror only constitutes in any practical sense the holding of the barbarians at the gates. In any political discussion, sure, I'm willing to look generations into the future in order to define goals, but why start with this? We kill more of our own by proxy of our commercial and industrial needs than terrorists ever could.
Winning certainly wasn't done under former President Clinton, look at all the terror that happened under him:
1993 - New York. First World Trade Center bombing. 6 killed and 1000 injured.
1993 - Somalia. 18 soldiers killed on a mission where Washington denied requests for Spectre gun ships and the use of armored vehicles. Al Qaeda involvement later confirmed.
1993 - Langley, Virginia. 2 CIA employees killed in attack on CIA Headquarters. The assailant escaped.
1994 - New York. Jewish teenager killed by gunman with links to the middle east.
1995 - India. Two American tourists kidnapped and killed.
1995 - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 5 Americans killed in attack on military headquarters.
1995 - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 168 Americans killed in truck bombing of Murrah Federal Building. While it was concluded that this was a case of domestic terrorism, there is some fairly disturbing evidence of Iraqi and perhaps Al Qaeda involvement. First there was the stream of warnings prior to the bombing, suggesting an imminent attack. John Doe #2 seen with McVeigh was later identified as a former member of Saddam's Republican Guard, who also had a stint working at Logan Airport. And Terry Nichols' trips to the Philippines have never been explained.
1996 - Saudi Arabia. 19 servicemen killed in truck bombing at Khobar Towers.
1996 - New York. 230 people killed in downing of TWA flight 800. The preliminary conclusion reached was a problem with the center fuel tank. That conclusion was reached despite over 200 eyewitness accounts of a missile or other object launching from the ground, some of whom were military and police officials. And despite the existence of explosive residue on the seats and other evidence to the contrary, the center fuel tank continues to be the official culprit. Even Senator Kerry twice referred to the downing of Flight 800 as a terrorist act after the mechanical explanation was floated. A warning that preceded the crash faxed to an Islamic news service in London which fixed the date of the crash, and subsequent credit for the act announced by Al Qaeda affiliates, were swept under the rug. Had a center fuel tank been deemed a risk, the entire fleet of 747s would have been grounded fo repairs. They were not.
1997 - Pakistan. 4 Union Texas Petroleum workers killed in Karachi.
1998 - Nairobi, Kenya. 12 Americans among the dead in the bombing of the US Embassy.
1998 - Yemen. 1 American tourist killed after being taken hostage.
1999. Uganda. 2 American tourists killed after being taken hostage.
1999. New York. 100 Americans among the 217 dead in the crashing of Egypt Air flight 990.
2000 - Yemen. 17 sailors killed in the attack on the USS Cole.
--Now WHAT did Clinton do? Invade? No. Declare war? No. Sit on his butt and send a few cruise missiles in and call the job complete? Yes. Clinton allowed all these attacks to go on, and declared no war, acted as though there was no problem. If he was President under 9/11 I feel we would have sent maybe 5 cruise missiles in, stepped up security for a month, and that would be it. I was watching this thing on The History Channel a week or so ago, where they had spies talking about Osama Bin Laden in some terror training camp. After all that research, then CIA director told Clinton he was ''120% sure Osama Bin Laden was there.'' Tenet recommended bombing the place. Clinton refused. Do you think Bush would have done that?