Guns, God, and Gays won't do it anymore...

In the 2000 election and a little bit of the 2004 election, the Repugnicans could simply push their "hot button" issues of God, Guns, and Gays to motivate their voters. But that old trick has become passe' now and just doesn't have the impact it did a decade ago.

In 2000, we were still enjoying some of the good life of the Clinton administration. People were working, jobs weren't being sent overseas, all the wars (more acurately, skirmishes) we participated in were over before they started. We enjoyed a good reputation on the world stage due to our foreign policy. And, most importantly, we had a surplus in the Treasury! Things were so good that we were the perfect victims for the Fear Mongers.

The GOP spent eight years trying to pin some crime on President Clinton and, failing that, attempted the same with his wife, When they failed at impeachment for the flimsiest of charges, they had little left except fear. So they created the fear that Liberals, Progressives, and the Democratic Party were trying to take their God away in any way they could imagine... and they were VERY imaginative! Then, for those that didn't fear "god" being taken away, they pointed accusing fingers at those trying to control guns and crime as "trying to take our guns away"! Finally, for those who might still have some sense of security in place, they trotted out a Gay person and claimed they were trying to advance an agenda that included them "recuiting our kids to their sinful ways"!

We watched as the Fear Fector did it's worst in 2000 and 2004. In 2006, they realized the price to be paid for Fear-based Voting. The Fear-based voter got what it voted for and that was nothing but more fear. They were in no better place after three national elections. God's not any better off. Guns are still available; even assualt rifles are legal now! And Gay people are no better or worse off than they were in 1999. The net of the three "hot button" issues? Zero!

It appears however, that the GOP still hasn't gotten the message. The "debates" in North Carolina offered some insight into the formation of the GOP platform and, surprise, it's no different than it was in 2000! It's still God, Guns and Gays and that just won't do it anymore when there's an 800 gorilla called Iraq in the middle of the room.

(You know, W, if you're looking for a War Czar to act as the Commander-in-Chief, you should consider Bill Clinton. He had two wars while in office and an uncooperative, adversarial Congress yet managed to rise above that with hardly any losses and no lasting entanglement.)

Who's gona win in 2008?

Hot off the press... MSNBC... reporting on a recent poll... "Obama beats the leading Republicans by larger margins than any other Democrat: besting Giuliani 50 to 43 percent, among registered voters; beating McCain 52 to 39 percent, and defeating Romney 58 percent to 29 percent"

You'll enjoy this moment, Matt. We're talking in the break room at work, me and a "conservative". The news about Obama getting Secret Service protection sparked a conversation about his candidancy versus Clinton. Another Liberal and I agree that it's refreshing to have these two for consideration. The "conservative" chimes in that he would support Obama over Clinton... an "anybody but Clinton" sort of mentality but interesting nonetheless. He also said that the Repubs haven't got a chance in this next election so it's going to be important what Democrat gets the nomination.

Now I know you support Edwards and I'd be gald to hear your points again... this time for the public, please. I am still making up my mind. I lean towards both Clinton and Obama at the monent, and in that order.

I'd like to see a woman President. It's about time. For over 30 years I've been supporting the idea of more female represenation in Congress. After all, 51 percent of the population is Female (making them hardly a minority statistically) but they are represented by only three or four (can't recall the specifics) women in the Senate. So less than 5 percent of the highest deliberative, legislative body represents 51 percent of the population? That's nonsense! Women need to get out and support their candidates. If they do, then Clinton is a total "slam dunk" (I almost hesitate to use that word in light of recent Tenet testimony).

Obama, on the other hand, brings to the election, the Presidential "attitude" that Bush displayed in the 2000 election... that confident, full speed ahead, attitude that makes Americans wanna salute the flag. That's probably what gets the support of the "conservatives" like my office friend. They like the BigDaddy, "I'm gonna protect you and kick the butt of anyone who means to harm you" sort. Obama pushes right up to the edge of that without going into the Bush-bravado, swagger, flightsuit thing W did on Mission Accomplished Day.

So, it's interesting to note two things. One, A Democrat will win the election and it will probably be either a woman or a black if it's between Clinton and Obama. I predict a Clinton-Obama ticket and, therefore, BOTH will win. The question now is which order, Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton?

(Note: I use the term "conservative" to describe those who claim to be conservative because nowadays, they are not really conservative in the politically, historical sense of the word. Matt, you have a great way of defining this and I'll leave it to you to make your point. anyway, today's "conservatives" are not really conservative in the Goldwater sense of the word. Back then, they truely wanted less federal government and more local and state control. They wanted decisions made at a local level based on the "majority rule". The problem is, that doesn't work any more. Our problems today are global and international. Trying to solve them one state at a time isn't going to work anymore. More about this later... Today's conservative movement is really a mixture of fiscal tightwads, sometime libertarians, social/sexual repressives, ignorant, poorly educated or informed, well meaning social protectionists, lead by power and money hungry self promoters. There's little that really conservative in the movement that was there in 1980. The only thing conservative about the movement today is their use of the label "conservative". Matt you have some really excellent thoughts on this. Please share them!)