www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Post Election Confession?

Dear Jennifer, Esq.,

That that is happening truly does mean that I'm correct in my assessment of the situation and djs is wrong.

There will be no mercy for Kerry, mark me! (That's not fair, but that is politics)

But djs' heart is in the right place (I'll amend that, counselor, to say "correct")

Alex

I remember a newspaper cartoon after one of the Reagan victories, one that I have often wished I had saved. It showed the leaders of the Democratic party sitting in an office discussing the reasons they had lost the election. Of course, they were mentioning such things as not communicating their message, and the usual excuses for losing. Outside the building, some ordinary folks were shouting toward the windows, "you're too far left." They didn't get it then and still don't. It seems they really are out of touch with the majority of ordinary people. Their traditional constituencies, such as labor, have shrunk. I think that party seems to emphasize positions that the majority of voters no longer consider their main concerns. Unless, they can move a little more to the center, this election may repeat itself. It reminds me of the statement attributed to Adlai Stevenson who couldn't believe Eisenhower's win. Stevenson said, "but nobody I know voted for him." Probably true. But it is a good illustration of how it is possible to isolate yourself in a group of like-minded individuals to the point of not realizing that others don't share your views.

This simply isn't true. Look at President Bush's appointments to the court. He is quietly and methodically filling them with stealth pro-life candidates. He signed the partial-birth abortion ban, he provided prescriptions to the elderly (the Democrats didn't want to do this, they only wanted the issue to hold over the heads of our seniors). In the 11 states that banned homosexual marriage the grass root efforts were 90% Republican and only 10% Democrat.

Keep in mind that the stem cell research which Bush allowed funding for was on humans that are already dead. Kerry promised to allow cloning to create more humand to kill for stem cells.

Henry could not be more wrong.

Most of what Sharon writes is simply not accurate. But even if it were, the Church teaches us that respect for life (banning abortions) is far more important than work place safety regulations. I speak as a union member who wished I was not forced to pay union dues that only goes to pro-abortion Democrats.

The margin of victory for Bush was much larger than the margin of victory for Clinton in 1992 or 1996. Clinton claimed mandates both times. President Bush has a more solid claim to a mandate than President Clinton ever did. Bush had 51% of the popular vote (Clinton never got to 50%). Bush won. Bush won 30 states to Kerry's 20 states, 272 electorial votes to 252.

President Bush should work boldly for his agenda. He should reach out to the Democrats to cooperate as he did in 2001. But he should be very careful of people like Ted Kennedy who will attempt to use him and then attack him. People did not vote for him only because he opposed homosexual marriage. They voted for him because they agree with much of his agenda.

djs complains of the gerrymandering of districts in Texas. I wonder if he complained when they were gerrymandered in earlier years to benefit the Democrats? Or was that somehow justified?

The Democrat definition of unity usually means Republicans abandoning their core values and taking the Democratic path. President Bush must reject this. Unity means both sides cooperating on areas where they agree and the Republicans, with their mandate, setting the agenda and accomplishing as much of it as possible.

Alex,

I really have no idea of what you are talking about, and it's seems that you have no idea what I am saying either. The idea that a incumbent garnering 51% of the vote represents a mandate, or a "rejection" of the opponent's platform that requires some wholesale rethinking of principles is may be something that happens in Canada. Typically here the first place people look is the candidate. Hence , Reagan is followed after the failed BushI, by Clinton, who is followed by Bush.
These elections were not mandates for platforms, they represented an electorate choosing a candidate they felt comfortable with - or rejecting one that they felt uncomfortable with. You presuppose that the voters know the platforms!

Thus, people will find fault with the candidate rather than the platform. And I think then Jennfier's comment (what is DCF?) butresses my point and vitiates yours.

Yeah right.
Integrate over the last three Presidential elections. Now are you saying that the electorate is not ordinary people or what are you saying?

Dear djs,

I think I do have an idea what you are talking about

But it's obviously not a good time to talk to you about it.

And I don't mind my argument being vitiated by Jennifer or even by you!

And I think Americans are more familiar with their politicians' platforms than anyone else - which is why Kerry is not in the White House today.

Kerry just didn't have the votes and there was no reason why he couldn't have taken the White House by storm. The election was his to win and he didn't win it.

You're obviously not a political operative for the Democrats.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Do try to get over it though . . .

Alex

So are you condemning President Clinton for twice claiming a mandate when he had less then 50% of the popular vote?

You mean the successful Bush I and the failed Clinton. Clinton was wrong on all the life issues. He succeeded economically because allowed the Reagean economic engine to continue and didn't fiddle with it too much. Plus, the Republican Congress kept him from doing too much damage.

So will you condemn President Clinton for saying and acting if he had a mandate for his platform, especially socialized medicine the the people rejected overwhelmingly?

You mix and match margins, percentages, and electroal vote totals in an funny way - and number of states is meaningless. One can turn this arounsd of course; Clinton's EV totals were much greater. And IIRC his margins were greater than W's. I am not sure of the point, but the fact-challenged argumets can't really support it whatever it is.

I made no complaint, at all. :rolleyes: DeLay does have some ethics and legal problems; I'm not sure that they are related to the gerrymandering. But this is not an accusation but just a fact, that is universallly acknowledged, and attaches context to the limited House gains. I think we can agree that Texas is scarcely more conservative today that two years ago!

I don't recognize your "Democrat definition of unity". Do you have a source or are you just making this up. Personally, I am happy if the Republicans go whole hog; they will help reverse their own tide.

Big relatively big popular differences and electoral margins, by the standards of the last two elections. But I don't really remeber mandate claims. Can you jodg my memory?


No. The context is, as judged by the electorate when running for re-election.

Nice point.
You see, Alex, even though the health care plank of the Clinton platform plan was rejected he was re-elected.


Btw Gary K Clinton has bee gone for a while. Get over it and move on.

They were ordinary voters as opposed to the party officials/employees inside the building. No, I was talking about this election and a cartoon I saw after one of the Reagan victories. I think Clinton's success was because he was more of a centrist. He also had a great deal of charisma which few candidates from either party usually have. I even heard one Democrat on Charlie Rose say that Clinton was a Republican. Funny, but it really happened. Most Republicans would differ with that opinion.

You don't recognize the working definition of your own party? Shame.

Yes, let's hope the Republicans go whole hog. It would be very nice to replace the abortionists on the Supreme Court with pro-lifers. It would also be nice to see changes made to Social Security to make it fiscally solid for future generations. And real reform to health care. The answers are not to follow the socialized approaches that are failing in Europe and Canada. The Democrats answer to everything is socialism (but they won't openly call it that).

Clinton's #1 mandate was socialized health care.

I think it is John Kerry that needs to get over it. He is the one who called Clinton to campaign and invited Clinton's people to take over his campaign.

Clinton is not an evil man. He is just wrong on all the issues. Especially abortion.

Clinton was certainly more center of, say, Chomsky. But his gift was not being a centrist, I think. He was a great tactician, however, who would compromise in the short term, even weaving right of center, for making directed gains in the longer-term.

I agree very much with the second part of your perception of Clinton's success. This again points to the person versus platform as very important. The country didn't shift from Regan conservative to Clinton liberal - both were within the broad mainstream, and both benefitted from their great personal charisma.

Your responses seem so oblique to mine that it's hard for me to see it.

I did notice your comment on Calvinistic ethos. I was not at all talking about a work ethic. I was talking about the sense of electness and its manifestation in personal prosperity. A Catholic vision of the poor and disenfanchised is the vision of the good Samaritan; it holds fast to Christ's warrant to feed the hungry; it's sees Christ in the least of all brethren, and recognizes in distance from the greatness of God, we are, to an excellent approximation, all at the same level. The Calvinist vision, which dovetails with Libertarian social Darwinism, sees in the poor and disenfranchised the judgement of God, which being righteous altogether, need not be mitigated. And with salvation by elect faith, the significance of works is lost. I think these outlooks, limitng cases really, are incompatible.