Atlas Forum

Election Archive => 2004 U.S. Presidential Election => Topic started by: Reaganfan on January 31, 2004, 07:46:17 pm



Title: 2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Reaganfan on January 31, 2004, 07:46:17 pm
I think and hope President Bush will get a second term. I think the tickets in November will be:

Bush/Cheney*
Kerry/Edwards

*Rumors are getting stronger that Bush may drop VP Cheney due to his health. While it is slim, if it does happen I would expect either:

Elizabeth Dole
Rudy Giuliani
Bill Frist
Trent Lott
or Condi Rice on the VP ticket.

Right now, I think John Kerry will get the Democratic nomination. John Edwards is the young man with "FUTURE" talent. If he loses the nomination, I think Kerry would make Edwards his running mate. Hillary would be my second choice for Democrat VP, but she would say no to Kerry and want to wait to be boss.

I think Bush will win in any prospect. He is a great leader who did not start a war for oil, or steal the election.
Democrats blame President Bush for everything. It almost makes me sick to my stomach. Since 2002, the Democrat party is falling apart. Dean is SO FAR LEFT, Liberman works as a more moderate Democrat, and Kucinich wants a "SECRETARY OF PEACE". Republicans tend to want to listen and learn more than Democrats.

I hope we win in 2004, and in 2008 Hillary Clinton and ..... Tom Dashle lose to Rudy and Rice!!!


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: agcatter on January 31, 2004, 07:55:29 pm
Reaganfan, since you are on the ground there, what does the general election look like in Ohio ? (Bush vs. Kerry).  Seems from what I've read that is the state Dems most covet taking from Bush.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Dave from Michigan on January 31, 2004, 08:09:49 pm
Trent Lott?  I don't think that would be smart


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Reaganfan on January 31, 2004, 08:30:51 pm
I really don't see Kerry winning Ohio since it typically goes Republican.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: NHPolitico on January 31, 2004, 08:37:12 pm
I really don't see Kerry winning Ohio since it typically goes Republican.

What you do is pick Gephardt as VP and send him to WV and Ohio. Let him take responsibility for those two states.  That's it. Make him live there. He'll talk non-stop about manufacturing job losses. He can visit every union-shop in those states.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Reaganfan on January 31, 2004, 08:58:51 pm
Kerry-Gephardt
Kerry-Edwards
Kerry-Lurch (ADDAMS FAMILY)
 I don't think it really matters to Bush.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Platypus on January 31, 2004, 09:05:50 pm
Isn't Kerry himself lurch? I don't think you can be running for POTUS and VPOTUS at the same time...

so much for republicans being more learned :rolleyes:


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: tweed on January 31, 2004, 09:52:56 pm
Great screen name 'Reaganfan.'  There were so many of you people whon elected that old-as-hell actor.  but don't get me started on Reagan :)

I hold Bush's chances at 65% in 2004.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Reaganfan on January 31, 2004, 10:06:14 pm
Kerry is Lurch. I mean't to put Kerry=Lurch. My mistake. For Democrats bashing Reagan, all you do is whine. I'm a tough Republican that WILL stand up to arguments. If FDR had four terms, I'm sure had the 22nd amendment not been passed, that Reagan would have been the kind of man (BACK IN 1935) to be elected four terms. He deserves to be on the dime or even better, replace Franklin on the hundred dollar bill. Franklin is not a president although he did help with the Declaration of Independence. President Cleveland was on the 1,000 dollar bill for a few years. What did he do that made him on currency. Reagan avoided a nuclear war, and made the best economy up until Bush in 2003-2004. BTW, we have never had a real liberal man/women president. I know some that say "I'll vote anybody but Bush" or "I hate Bush". WHAT DID THE MAN DO!!!! Have there been anymore terror attacks since Septemebr 11th..... Sorry, but I like this board and I hope you don;'t mind if I stay awhile to tell the truth.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on January 31, 2004, 10:07:15 pm
Great screen name 'Reaganfan.'  There were so many of you people whon elected that old-as-hell actor.  but don't get me started on Reagan :)

I hold Bush's chances at 65% in 2004.
Reagan was the best president this nation has ever seen.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Reaganfan on January 31, 2004, 10:09:13 pm
I agree PD, wow a California Republican. Arnold would be proud!!!


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on January 31, 2004, 10:18:52 pm
I agree PD, wow a California Republican. Arnold would be proud!!!
Heh. Are you sure you want to be friends with me. I'm hated by every member of the forum except a few. It's because I'm an extremely far right-wing conservative republican. Even members of our own party attack me and despise me. You might not be liked too well if you associate yourself with me. Just a warning. But I would be glad to be your friend. I'm just warning you. And you would be surprised at how many republicans CA has. There are a lot of conservatives here. I do like Arnold, but he's not as conservative as I would like. He's a moderate, I'm an extremist. But hey, my parents supported him and voted for him. (I'm 15, so I can't vote yet and still live at home.) I even met him. They voted for him because McClintock didn't stand a chance. Arnold could win. So they had to vote for the person that could oust Davis. I personally like Bill Simon.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: M on January 31, 2004, 10:22:47 pm
Welcome to the forum! Trent Lott would be a decidedly bad choice as VP. Cheney is a good man, but I think we need to have Bush's political heir apparent on the ticket, hopefully Rudy. And I agree, Rudi-Condi would be an unstoppable ticket.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: tweed on January 31, 2004, 10:25:10 pm
Reagan was the best president this nation has ever seen.
(coughFDRcough)


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: MarkDel on January 31, 2004, 10:25:31 pm
Reagan was certainly the best President in my lifetime, but I think it's a stretch to say he was the greatest President ever. Some guys named Lincoln and Washington might have something to say about that!!!

As for Reaganfan's overall point...I agree, this will turn into a Kerry/Edwards ticket against Bush/Cheney. And I agree that Bush will win by a reasonably comfortable margin. The main reason is that I cannot imagine any states that Bush won in 2000 switching over to the Dems in 2004...and I can imagine a few Democratic states moving over to the Republican column in 2004.

The states that Bush won in 2000 that Democrats believe they can realistically win are the following:

1. Ohio
2. West Virginia
3. Nevada
4. New Hampshire
5. Arizona
6. Florida

All six would be within reach, but only under the wildest of circumstances. The Bush administration would have to make some major screwup between now and Election Day, and that is extremely unlikely. Weapons of Mass Destruction??? Other than hardcore Dems, people could care less. The economy??? The job situation is still so/so, but it's on the upswing and the stock market has made a miraculous recovery. Major terrorist event??? People would rally around the President rather than blame him...plus, when it comes to matters of national security, the average citizen trust the Republicans about 10 times more than the Dems. So the worse things got in terms of terrorism, the more they would turn to Bush.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: tweed on January 31, 2004, 10:27:22 pm
1. Ohio
2. West Virginia
3. Nevada
4. New Hampshire
5. Arizona
6. Florida

All six would be within reach, but only under the wildest of circumstances.
Ohio and WV will go Dem, I'm pretty sure.  But the Republicans will pick up NM, Wisconsin, and Iowa, so the Dems only pick up one EV there.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on January 31, 2004, 10:27:27 pm
Reagan was certainly the best President in my lifetime, but I think it's a stretch to say he was the greatest President ever. Some guys named Lincoln and Washington might have something to say about that!!!

As for Reaganfan's overall point...I agree, this will turn into a Kerry/Edwards ticket against Bush/Cheney. And I agree that Bush will win by a reasonably comfortable margin. The main reason is that I cannot imagine any states that Bush won in 2000 switching over to the Dems in 2004...and I can imagine a few Democratic states moving over to the Republican column in 2004.

The states that Bush won in 2000 that Democrats believe they can realistically win are the following:

1. Ohio
2. West Virginia
3. Nevada
4. New Hampshire
5. Arizona
6. Florida

All six would be within reach, but only under the wildest of circumstances. The Bush administration would have to make some major screwup between now and Election Day, and that is extremely unlikely. Weapons of Mass Destruction??? Other than hardcore Dems, people could care less. The economy??? The job situation is still so/so, but it's on the upswing and the stock market has made a miraculous recovery. Major terrorist event??? People would rally around the President rather than blame him...plus, when it comes to matters of national security, the average citizen trust the Republicans about 10 times more than the Dems. So the worse things got in terms of terrorism, the more they would turn to Bush.
The only ones that they could actually win out of those are West Virginia and New Hampshire.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on January 31, 2004, 10:35:48 pm
Reagan was the best president this nation has ever seen.
(coughFDRcough)
No offense, but FDR was an idiot. I admit he did a few good things, but he was repeatedly informed of Soviet infiltration of our government and said that it could not happen. He would not believe it. He was even shown papers and proof. Well, it turned out that there were thousands of Soviet spys holding high government offices in our government. That was proved after his death. A bunch of them were his personal assistants and advisors. At one point, one of his vice presidents (not Truman, I forget his name) was a Soviet spy. Not too many people know this information because the majority of it was kept secret for a long time. He was shaking hands with Stalin and in his mind he was saying "I'm so glad that Russia and America can get along." At the exact moment, Stalin was standing there and in his head saying "Sucker." FDR would just not believe it.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: tweed on January 31, 2004, 10:38:13 pm
No offense, but FDR was an idiot. I admit he did a few good things, but he was repeatedly informed of Soviet infiltration of our government and said that it could not happen. He would not believe it. He was even shown papers and proof. Well, it turned out that there were thousands of Soviet spys holding high government offices in our government. That was proved after his death. A bunch of them were his personal assistants and advisors. At one point, one of his vice presidents (not Truman, I forget his name) was a Soviet spy. Not too many people know this information because the majority of it was kept secret for a long time. He was shaking hands with Stalin and in his mind he was saying "I'm so glad that Russia and America can get along." At the exact moment, Stalin was standing there and in his head saying "Sucker." FDR would just not believe it.
He did only a few good things?  Please.  He brought the country out of the GREAT depresson, he brought down Hitler and eventually Stalin, and won four election decisively.  Reagan is nowhere near FDR.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on January 31, 2004, 10:47:49 pm
No offense, but FDR was an idiot. I admit he did a few good things, but he was repeatedly informed of Soviet infiltration of our government and said that it could not happen. He would not believe it. He was even shown papers and proof. Well, it turned out that there were thousands of Soviet spys holding high government offices in our government. That was proved after his death. A bunch of them were his personal assistants and advisors. At one point, one of his vice presidents (not Truman, I forget his name) was a Soviet spy. Not too many people know this information because the majority of it was kept secret for a long time. He was shaking hands with Stalin and in his mind he was saying "I'm so glad that Russia and America can get along." At the exact moment, Stalin was standing there and in his head saying "Sucker." FDR would just not believe it.
He did only a few good things?  Please.  He brought the country out of the GREAT depresson, he brought down Hitler and eventually Stalin, and won four election decisively.  Reagan is nowhere near FDR.
Yeah, he brought us out of the Depression, but it took him long enough. He did not bring down Hitler, Stalin did, he captured Berlin (something that never should've happened, we should have taken Berlin), Stalin was never brought down, he died. Reagan won the two largest landslides in history. Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. Reagan would have won four terms and then some if it weren't for term limits. Term limits did not exist when FDR was in office. A survey proved that the people still favored Reagan on a landslide scale in 1988 and if he could run they would elect him again.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: mossy on January 31, 2004, 10:50:40 pm
PD, if you're really only 15, start reading vetted history books first, before revisionist.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on January 31, 2004, 11:02:23 pm
 I suggest all you dems read Ann Coulter's books "Slander" and "Treason". I also Recommend Sean Hannity's book "Let Freedom Ring". I could recommend a hundred more, but I won't waste my time and post space because I know none of you liberals will ever even make an effort at it.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: M on January 31, 2004, 11:22:20 pm
You know, Hannity is fantastic on TV and radio, but the book was boring. Coulter was very entertaining, but she says some ridiculous things.

Reagan did not win the two greatest landslides in history. Washington was unanimous- twice- and one other early one, I think it was Monroe, would have been unanimous but one elector switched his vote so only Washington would be unanimous. '84 was the best in modern history, but '80 was smaller than '72, '36, and perhaps '64. (Correction- '80 was 3 electoral votes bigger ;andslide than '64.) Also, electoral success does not necessarily mean greatness. Look at Nixon.

All that being saig, I think Reagan was a great president, bu not as good as, at the least, Washington and Lincoln. I do think he was our best post-World War president.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on January 31, 2004, 11:24:45 pm
You know, Hannity is fantastic on TV and radio, but the book was boring. Coulter was very entertaining, but she says some ridiculous things.

Reagan did not win the two greatest landslides in history. Washington was unanimous- twice- and one other early one, I think it was Monroe, would have been unanimous but one elector switched his vote so only Washington would be unanimous. '84 was the best in modern history, but '80 was smaller than '72, '36, and perhaps '64. (Correction- '80 was 3 electoral votes bigger ;andslide than '64.) Also, electoral success does not necessarily mean greatness. Look at Nixon.

All that being saig, I think Reagan was a great president, bu not as good as, at the least, Washington and Lincoln. I do think he was our best post-World War president.
Here is another example of my own party members turning on me. Well, I think Reagan was the greatest of all.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 31, 2004, 11:35:14 pm
You know, Hannity is fantastic on TV and radio,

I tried listening to his radio show and 90% consists of Hannity extolling his humility.  The show moves at a speed that is 10x too slow for me.  He also ducks serious questions by those on the other side.  His show time also consists on 50% commericials.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on January 31, 2004, 11:40:23 pm
You know, Hannity is fantastic on TV and radio,

I tried listening to his radio show and 90% consists of Hannity extolling his humility.  The show moves at a speed that is 10x too slow for me.  He also ducks serious questions by those on the other side.  His show time also consists on 50% commericials.

I have never listened to his radio show, but I do listen to Rush Limbaugh, along with a few other conservative talk show hosts that are only here in CA. Those commercials, like they are here, pay for the program. They have to be there, otherwise there would be no show.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: M on January 31, 2004, 11:44:37 pm
I hardly think I turned on you by pointing out that Reagan simply did not factually, historically, provably win the greatest landslides in history. '84 was very impressive. So was '80. But they are not what they aren't.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Reaganfan on January 31, 2004, 11:51:01 pm
Well, for incumbant President Carter to lose to Reagan wiing only 49 votes for his re-election shows that many wanted a change.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 31, 2004, 11:53:58 pm
I hardly think I turned on you by pointing out that Reagan simply did not factually, historically, provably win the greatest landslides in history. '84 was very impressive. So was '80. But they are not what they aren't.

Acctually, Reagan won in 84 with the highest vote EV vote total in history, so technically,that would be the biggest landslide in history.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: M on January 31, 2004, 11:55:44 pm
No, it would not. Washington and Monroe (?) got higher percentages, just using totals is arbitrary and ridiculous.

I am a Reagan fan myself. But I am also a fan of historical accuracy.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Reaganfan on February 01, 2004, 12:00:32 am
Nixon had the big win in 1972. Would Hillary prevail over Rice or Rudy????


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Platypus on February 01, 2004, 12:18:04 am
No offense, but FDR was an idiot. I admit he did a few good things, but he was repeatedly informed of Soviet infiltration of our government and said that it could not happen. He would not believe it. He was even shown papers and proof. Well, it turned out that there were thousands of Soviet spys holding high government offices in our government. That was proved after his death. A bunch of them were his personal assistants and advisors. At one point, one of his vice presidents (not Truman, I forget his name) was a Soviet spy. Not too many people know this information because the majority of it was kept secret for a long time. He was shaking hands with Stalin and in his mind he was saying "I'm so glad that Russia and America can get along." At the exact moment, Stalin was standing there and in his head saying "Sucker." FDR would just not believe it.
He did only a few good things?  Please.  He brought the country out of the GREAT depresson, he brought down Hitler and eventually Stalin, and won four election decisively.  Reagan is nowhere near FDR.
Yeah, he brought us out of the Depression, but it took him long enough. He did not bring down Hitler, Stalin did, he captured Berlin (something that never should've happened, we should have taken Berlin), Stalin was never brought down, he died. Reagan won the two largest landslides in history. Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. Reagan would have won four terms and then some if it weren't for term limits. Term limits did not exist when FDR was in office. A survey proved that the people still favored Reagan on a landslide scale in 1988 and if he could run they would elect him again.

This sparks a bit of debate... Polls also show that if Clinton was able to run in 2000, he would have won.

Each party has their own heros, and nemisii. For the Democrats, its FDR/Bush. For the Republicans, it's Reagan/Clinton. I personally think Reagan was a pile of the proverbial, but nothing I say will make you change your mind. And nothing you say about FDR, the man who led us out of ther world's darkest days as a superpower, will make me change mine.

The US has such deep splits between the parties sometimes i'm amazed we aren't in another civil war. :S


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: M on February 01, 2004, 12:25:32 am
I'd say both the Bush and Clinton nemesii are temporary things. Republicans also hated Carter, and dems Nixon. FDR and Reagan are both on their way to being truly national great American historical figures. In my mind, both are among the greatest presidents in history. I do not think Bush should be judged yet. Clinton has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

GOPers did not really hate FDR in 20 years until Treason. I for one am sorry about that. So he wasn't perfect and trusted Stalin too much. He did save the nation from destruction twice. Not every prez can say that. I'd say the figure who at least used to dominate that party was Kennedy. But Kennedy has been used to explain a ridiculous variety of platforms. He was actually from the same political school as his friend Scoop Jackson and now Joe Lieberman, a hawk in any case where we could promote democracy. The fact that Ted Kennedy and Sen. JFK (D-MA) claim to be Kennedylike is preposterous. Teddy actually voices support for the PLO terrorists who murdered his brother! How sick can you get?


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Platypus on February 01, 2004, 12:29:52 am
I've never really understood Kennedy-hatred. Teddy Kennedy I can understand, he really is a nutjob. But JFK was a great president, if only for one thing he did-Cuban Missile Crisis.

If he did nothing else that was good, at least he did this. He saved America from the most deadly situation it has ever been in.

Kennedy wasn't perfect, and I don't agree with all he did. He certainly in't my favorite POTUS. But he was truly great under pressure :)


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: MAS117 on February 01, 2004, 12:31:26 am
If Kerry/Edwards ticket win the election that puts us Dems in the White House for 12 years as I see it.  Kerry wins 2 terms, followed by Edwards for 2 terms


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: agcatter on February 01, 2004, 12:39:34 am
JFK was, I think, a very good president in the short time he was in.  He cut taxes and believed in a strong national defense.  I think he was a good leader.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Platypus on February 01, 2004, 12:41:19 am
No, the GOP would throw *everything* at ousting Kerry in 2008. He is a liberal, remember?

I think that 2008 will be a big year. Over the last 3 elections, and also this one, we have had extremely close elections when you consider historical results. 2008, with two completely new players (if GWB wins 04) will be massive. Everything will be on the line.

I just hope Hilary isn't running.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: agcatter on February 01, 2004, 12:59:22 am
Why do you not want Hillary to run?


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Platypus on February 01, 2004, 01:03:20 am
Because she would lose, and yet another 4-8 years of GOP-Presidency would be horrible; if they were in power until 2016 they would control the whole supreme court.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: agcatter on February 01, 2004, 01:04:56 am
Is it that you think she's too polarizing a figure to win a general election?


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Platypus on February 01, 2004, 01:07:49 am
Absolutely.

Democrats will vote for her, but Independents won't; they (with reason) don't actually see her as a politician, more as an appointee.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: agcatter on February 01, 2004, 01:15:57 am
I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't make herself available for the ticket with Kerry.  Of course, it would be Kerry's decision but for her, given her ambition, it gives her great opportunity to be the nominee in 2008 should Kerry lose, and the heir apparent in 2012 if Kerry wins.  The woman is obviously VERY ambitious.  I know this.  I wouldn't want to be the Democrat in her way when she decides to go after the nomination.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: StevenNick on February 01, 2004, 01:24:04 am
No offense, but FDR was an idiot. I admit he did a few good things, but he was repeatedly informed of Soviet infiltration of our government and said that it could not happen. He would not believe it. He was even shown papers and proof. Well, it turned out that there were thousands of Soviet spys holding high government offices in our government. That was proved after his death. A bunch of them were his personal assistants and advisors. At one point, one of his vice presidents (not Truman, I forget his name) was a Soviet spy. Not too many people know this information because the majority of it was kept secret for a long time. He was shaking hands with Stalin and in his mind he was saying "I'm so glad that Russia and America can get along." At the exact moment, Stalin was standing there and in his head saying "Sucker." FDR would just not believe it.
He did only a few good things?  Please.  He brought the country out of the GREAT depresson, he brought down Hitler and eventually Stalin, and won four election decisively.  Reagan is nowhere near FDR.

That's garbage.  FDR sank the country deeper into the depression.  He set ridiculous price and wage controls, gave the unions power to do just about whatever they wanted, he destroyed vast amounds of crops and livestock to raise farm prices when untold millions around the country were STARVING!  This man was not a good president.  He was a complete moron who didn't know the first thing about economics.  He blamed investors for the Great Depression and continued to "punish" them with his policies throughout his time as president.  He regulated every facet of business and effectively killed any new business ventures through his meddling.  At best his policies simply made it hard for new jobs to be created, but more than likely his policies destroyed thousands, perhaps even millions of jobs.  Then of course there's FDR's constant trampling of the Constitution.  He governed by Executive Order, packed the courts with other incompetent New Deal sympathizers, and put the Japanese into internment camps.  What about this man deserves respect.  He was a fraud, a failure ("A miserable failure...) who rivals Johnson, Carter, and Nixon for the title of WORST PRESIDENT EVER!  


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Dave from Michigan on February 01, 2004, 01:24:41 am
 
Quote
Because she would lose, and yet another 4-8 years of GOP-Presidency would be horrible; if they were in power until 2016 they would control the whole supreme court

she would lose and 4 to 8 years of the GOP would be awesome and your most likely right about controling the supreme court they could overturn roe vs. wade
 
 
 
 


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: StevenNick on February 01, 2004, 01:27:34 am
I've never really understood Kennedy-hatred. Teddy Kennedy I can understand, he really is a nutjob. But JFK was a great president, if only for one thing he did-Cuban Missile Crisis.

If he did nothing else that was good, at least he did this. He saved America from the most deadly situation it has ever been in.

Kennedy wasn't perfect, and I don't agree with all he did. He certainly in't my favorite POTUS. But he was truly great under pressure :)

But the Cuban Missile Crisis was of JFK's own making.  If he hadn't idiotically refused to give air support to the anti-Castro forces in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, there may not have ever been a Cuban Missile Crisis.  I certainly don't hate JFK, but the only reason he is considered a great president is because he was assassinated.  That's it.  The man was just as inept as Jimmy Carter and he was a real scumbag in his personal life.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: opebo on February 01, 2004, 08:13:24 am
Reagan was the best president this nation has ever seen.
(coughFDRcough)

FDR was not a good president.  In fact I would say he is the worst, with Johnson a close second, and Wilson third.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: opebo on February 01, 2004, 08:16:52 am
1. Ohio
2. West Virginia
3. Nevada
4. New Hampshire
5. Arizona
6. Florida

All six would be within reach, but only under the wildest of circumstances.
Ohio and WV will go Dem, I'm pretty sure.  But the Republicans will pick up NM, Wisconsin, and Iowa, so the Dems only pick up one EV there.

I think you're wrong about OH and WV.  The cultural polarization/patriotism issue will help there.  And the economy is not that bad in either state.  The union voters are in any case a declining part of the electorate.  I also think in addition to picking up NM, WI, and IA we'll get Minnesota - why not?  Actually I think its more likely we'll keep OH and WV than pick up MN or even NM/WI/IA.  I'm big on continuity.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: opebo on February 01, 2004, 08:19:47 am
No offense, but FDR was an idiot. I admit he did a few good things, but he was repeatedly informed of Soviet infiltration of our government and said that it could not happen. He would not believe it. He was even shown papers and proof. Well, it turned out that there were thousands of Soviet spys holding high government offices in our government. That was proved after his death. A bunch of them were his personal assistants and advisors. At one point, one of his vice presidents (not Truman, I forget his name) was a Soviet spy. Not too many people know this information because the majority of it was kept secret for a long time. He was shaking hands with Stalin and in his mind he was saying "I'm so glad that Russia and America can get along." At the exact moment, Stalin was standing there and in his head saying "Sucker." FDR would just not believe it.
He did only a few good things?  Please.  He brought the country out of the GREAT depresson, he brought down Hitler and eventually Stalin, and won four election decisively.  Reagan is nowhere near FDR.

FDR was just a socialist.  He did more to destroy the Constitution than any other president.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: opebo on February 01, 2004, 08:22:31 am
I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't make herself available for the ticket with Kerry.  Of course, it would be Kerry's decision but for her, given her ambition, it gives her great opportunity to be the nominee in 2008 should Kerry lose, and the heir apparent in 2012 if Kerry wins.  The woman is obviously VERY ambitious.  I know this.  I wouldn't want to be the Democrat in her way when she decides to go after the nomination.

Hah, I wish Hilary would run as VP with Kerry.  I can't think of a more helpful VP choice for our side!


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 01, 2004, 10:19:52 am
Please do NOT attack FDR like that... I realise that he was left wing and that certain Republicans hate for that but please be serious.
He did NOT drag America deeper into the Depression, and although the New Deal did not end the Depression, it made it hurt less and did a lot to help poor people.
I wish we had it over here and not the uncaring incompetence of the National Government.

I've never been a fan of revisionist history, it's more about selling more books than actually informing people about the past. Not that I'm a big fan of Whig or Marxist interpretations either...
Post-Revisionism can be good though :)


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: agcatter on February 01, 2004, 10:43:34 am
I am one Republican who doesn't hate FDR.  The record is mixed.  I think he was a good war leader and had a good working relationship with Churchill.  He should , however, never, ever been elected for that last term.  He was old and sick and allowed "Uncle Joe" to completely take us to the cleaners at Yalta.  His naivete about Stalin was unbelievable.  Also, his choice of Henry Wallace as VP could have been disastrous for this country had FDR died during his third term.  Imagine Henry Wallace as President of the United States.  God was truly smiling on this country when Wallace was dropped for political reasons from the ticket in 44 and replaced by Harry Truman.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Michael Z on February 01, 2004, 10:47:20 am
I'm inclined to agree with RP. Admittedly, I agree with many Republicans that it's a myth that the New Deal alleviated the Great Depression (the statistics speak for themselves, unemployment was still above 15% as late as 1938!), but it certainly didn't make it worse either. Unemployment did go down inbetween 1932 and 1938, albeit only marginally. To suggest that the economy was worse off under FDR smacks of neocon revisionism.

But regardless, you can say what you like about his achievements on the economy, FDR is a hero for what he did in WW2.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 01, 2004, 10:51:02 am
Stalin could run rings around anyone he wanted to (even extremly clever people like Trotsky and Bukharin)
FDR was very ill (but not very old), Churchill has no excuse though.
No one really thought that Stalin was much of a threat until it was too late :(
But he [Churchill] was voted out in 1945 and replaced by Clement Atlee, much to the suprise of "Uncle Joe".


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Reaganfan on February 01, 2004, 10:54:15 am
In 2008, Hillary will be 60 years old and maybe an old shadow. Rudy and Rice would be tops as well as Bill Frist. Condi Rice would get the Republican, black, and womens vote. Hillary would get the Democrat and womens. In 2008, if all holds true, I predict a President Giuliani or a President Rice. Hillary still says she will never run, but whatever the Clinton's say they won't do, they do.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: agcatter on February 01, 2004, 11:15:13 am
Perhaps, but selecting a communist apologist like Henry Wallace as VP of the US was unforgivable.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Reaganfan on February 01, 2004, 12:58:51 pm
If Rudy becomes VP in 2005, he would be up for the presidency in 2008. Same thing with Rice.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: opebo on February 01, 2004, 01:13:45 pm
Perhaps, but selecting a communist apologist like Henry Wallace as VP of the US was unforgivable.

True, though the whole Democratic Party was full of Communist sympathizers at that time.  The thirties and fourties were a frightfully left-wing period.  


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: agcatter on February 01, 2004, 01:54:47 pm
Indeed it was full of sympothizers.  Wallace was one of the worst.  He was borderline treasonous.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on February 01, 2004, 02:23:23 pm
Well, for incumbant President Carter to lose to Reagan wiing only 49 votes for his re-election shows that many wanted a change.
THANK YOU!


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on February 01, 2004, 02:23:55 pm
I hardly think I turned on you by pointing out that Reagan simply did not factually, historically, provably win the greatest landslides in history. '84 was very impressive. So was '80. But they are not what they aren't.

Acctually, Reagan won in 84 with the highest vote EV vote total in history, so technically,that would be the biggest landslide in history.
THANK YOU!


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on February 01, 2004, 02:28:34 pm
No offense, but FDR was an idiot. I admit he did a few good things, but he was repeatedly informed of Soviet infiltration of our government and said that it could not happen. He would not believe it. He was even shown papers and proof. Well, it turned out that there were thousands of Soviet spys holding high government offices in our government. That was proved after his death. A bunch of them were his personal assistants and advisors. At one point, one of his vice presidents (not Truman, I forget his name) was a Soviet spy. Not too many people know this information because the majority of it was kept secret for a long time. He was shaking hands with Stalin and in his mind he was saying "I'm so glad that Russia and America can get along." At the exact moment, Stalin was standing there and in his head saying "Sucker." FDR would just not believe it.
He did only a few good things?  Please.  He brought the country out of the GREAT depresson, he brought down Hitler and eventually Stalin, and won four election decisively.  Reagan is nowhere near FDR.

That's garbage.  FDR sank the country deeper into the depression.  He set ridiculous price and wage controls, gave the unions power to do just about whatever they wanted, he destroyed vast amounds of crops and livestock to raise farm prices when untold millions around the country were STARVING!  This man was not a good president.  He was a complete moron who didn't know the first thing about economics.  He blamed investors for the Great Depression and continued to "punish" them with his policies throughout his time as president.  He regulated every facet of business and effectively killed any new business ventures through his meddling.  At best his policies simply made it hard for new jobs to be created, but more than likely his policies destroyed thousands, perhaps even millions of jobs.  Then of course there's FDR's constant trampling of the Constitution.  He governed by Executive Order, packed the courts with other incompetent New Deal sympathizers, and put the Japanese into internment camps.  What about this man deserves respect.  He was a fraud, a failure ("A miserable failure...) who rivals Johnson, Carter, and Nixon for the title of WORST PRESIDENT EVER!  
THANK YOU! MY POINT EXACTLY! Though I do like Nixon.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on February 01, 2004, 02:31:42 pm
Please do NOT attack FDR like that... I realise that he was left wing and that certain Republicans hate for that but please be serious.
He did NOT drag America deeper into the Depression, and although the New Deal did not end the Depression, it made it hurt less and did a lot to help poor people.
I wish we had it over here and not the uncaring incompetence of the National Government.

I've never been a fan of revisionist history, it's more about selling more books than actually informing people about the past. Not that I'm a big fan of Whig or Marxist interpretations either...
Post-Revisionism can be good though :)
With the way you attack our people, we will attack FDR anyway we please.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: PD on February 01, 2004, 02:34:12 pm
Perhaps, but selecting a communist apologist like Henry Wallace as VP of the US was unforgivable.

True, though the whole Democratic Party was full of Communist sympathizers at that time.  The thirties and fourties were a frightfully left-wing period.  
The whole democratic party is still full of communist sympathizers, if not communists themselves. This is still a frightfully left-wing period. The only difference is that they have gotten worse.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Reaganfan on February 01, 2004, 03:06:39 pm
We've never had what I'd call a DEAN-LIBERAL President.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: 2,868,691 on February 01, 2004, 03:32:54 pm
Perhaps, but selecting a communist apologist like Henry Wallace as VP of the US was unforgivable.

True, though the whole Democratic Party was full of Communist sympathizers at that time.  The thirties and fourties were a frightfully left-wing period.  
The whole democratic party is still full of communist sympathizers, if not communists themselves. This is still a frightfully left-wing period. The only difference is that they have gotten worse.

You ruin any of your credibilty by saying ridiculous things like that.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Reaganfan on February 01, 2004, 05:24:25 pm
By DEAN-LIBERAL I mean a true left-wing. Remember Clinton ran moderate in 1992 and then turned out to be more liberal than we all thought.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: tweed on February 01, 2004, 05:26:34 pm
By DEAN-LIBERAL I mean a true left-wing. Remember Clinton ran moderate in 1992 and then turned out to be more liberal than we all thought.
Clinton ran as a centrist, went left form 93-94, saw that the Dems had their collective ass handed to them in 1994 and went back to the center for the rest of his tenure.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Michael Z on February 01, 2004, 05:31:01 pm
We've never had what I'd call a DEAN-LIBERAL President. By DEAN-LIBERAL I mean a true left-wing.

Hmmm, Teddy Roosevelt was about as left-wing as they come... at least in terms of domestic policy.

Oh by the way, I didn't get the chance to welcome you to the forum yet. Hi. :)


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 01, 2004, 05:33:26 pm
By DEAN-LIBERAL I mean a true left-wing. Remember Clinton ran moderate in 1992 and then turned out to be more liberal than we all thought.
Clinton ran as a centrist, went left form 93-94, saw that the Dems had their collective ass handed to them in 1994 and went back to the center for the rest of his tenure.

Alright, finally a Democrat who will admit that.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Reaganfan on February 01, 2004, 05:33:46 pm
Hi, I'm new. But, I like to post...


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Gustaf on February 01, 2004, 05:37:26 pm
I'm gonna make a few points on FDR and Reagan. First off, M is compeltely right that the percentage of EVs is the thing to look at, anything else is ridiculous. That's like saying that Nader is much more popular than Washington was, b/c Nader recieved more popular votes. And the highest EV-percentage since pre-civil war era IS FDR, in 1936.

One of the left-wingers in these times were Ronald Reagan, btw, who supported freedom of speech for Communists, one of the things that makes him great in my opinion. Just a little reminder, PD. There was not thousands of spies everywhere, I thought McCarthy was well buried, but I guess I was wrong.

To RP: I am pretty sure that Churchill did what he could to fight Stalin, but was betrayed by FDR and Britan was too weak to go on it's own. FDR and Eisenhower, like most Americans of that time, failed to see the Communist threat in time, which put much of Eastern Europe into Soviet hands.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 01, 2004, 05:47:12 pm
I'm gonna make a few points on FDR and Reagan. First off, M is compeltely right that the percentage of EVs is the thing to look at, anything else is ridiculous. That's like saying that Nader is much more popular than Washington was, b/c Nader recieved more popular votes. And the highest EV-percentage since pre-civil war era IS FDR, in 1936.

One of the left-wingers in these times were Ronald Reagan, btw, who supported freedom of speech for Communists, one of the things that makes him great in my opinion. Just a little reminder, PD. There was not thousands of spies everywhere, I thought McCarthy was well buried, but I guess I was wrong.

To RP: I am pretty sure that Churchill did what he could to fight Stalin, but was betrayed by FDR and Britan was too weak to go on it's own. FDR and Eisenhower, like most Americans of that time, failed to see the Communist threat in time, which put much of Eastern Europe into Soviet hands.

There were a lot of spies and communist sympathisers in the FDR administration.  Alger Hiss and Henry Wallace to name a couple (Wallace wasn't a spy, but he was a sympathiser.  What you said about Reagan is true, he always supported freedom of speech, just not subversive communism.  BIG difference.

Also, you were right about FDR and Churchill except I would say that FDR was more compliant with Soviet demands than what you can attribute to nievity about the Soviets.  I think that FDR let the entire world down when he AT LEAST failed to stop Soviet control of Eastern Europe.  Patton had the right idea.  We should have kicked the Soviets butts back into Russia, where they belonged.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Gustaf on February 01, 2004, 05:51:58 pm
I'm gonna make a few points on FDR and Reagan. First off, M is compeltely right that the percentage of EVs is the thing to look at, anything else is ridiculous. That's like saying that Nader is much more popular than Washington was, b/c Nader recieved more popular votes. And the highest EV-percentage since pre-civil war era IS FDR, in 1936.

One of the left-wingers in these times were Ronald Reagan, btw, who supported freedom of speech for Communists, one of the things that makes him great in my opinion. Just a little reminder, PD. There was not thousands of spies everywhere, I thought McCarthy was well buried, but I guess I was wrong.

To RP: I am pretty sure that Churchill did what he could to fight Stalin, but was betrayed by FDR and Britan was too weak to go on it's own. FDR and Eisenhower, like most Americans of that time, failed to see the Communist threat in time, which put much of Eastern Europe into Soviet hands.

There were a lot of spies and communist sympathisers in the FDR administration.  Alger Hiss and Henry Wallace to name a couple (Wallace wasn't a spy, but he was a sympathiser.  What you said about Reagan is true, he always supported freedom of speech, just not subversive communism.  BIG difference.

Also, you were right about FDR and Churchill except I would say that FDR was more compliant with Soviet demands than what you can attribute to nievity about the Soviets.  I think that FDR let the entire world down when he AT LEAST failed to stop Soviet control of Eastern Europe.  Patton had the right idea.  We should have kicked the Soviets butts back into Russia, where they belonged.

I don't think that there was a grand conspiracy of thousands working in the administration, that's all. I know a descendant of Henry Wallace, I'll ask about the Communist thing next time I see him. I never meant to suggest that Reagan supported Communists, but he was a left-winger. PD has said that Communism should be made illegal, so I thought he might be interested in Reagan's position. I believe he left the Actor's Guild b/c he couldn't stand all the Communists in it.

I don't know if a war would have been good, but an effort could have been made at grabbing as much of the East as possible and no caving in to the Soviets. You have to remember the state Europe was in, a prolonged war would ahve been disastrous.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 02, 2004, 05:24:52 am
Alger Hiss was probably an innocent scapegoat and his name was cleared by a very respected Russian historian (Volkogonov) when the Soviet archives were opened.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: opebo on February 02, 2004, 07:09:43 am
I'm gonna make a few points on FDR and Reagan. First off, M is compeltely right that the percentage of EVs is the thing to look at, anything else is ridiculous. That's like saying that Nader is much more popular than Washington was, b/c Nader recieved more popular votes. And the highest EV-percentage since pre-civil war era IS FDR, in 1936.

One of the left-wingers in these times were Ronald Reagan, btw, who supported freedom of speech for Communists, one of the things that makes him great in my opinion. Just a little reminder, PD. There was not thousands of spies everywhere, I thought McCarthy was well buried, but I guess I was wrong.

To RP: I am pretty sure that Churchill did what he could to fight Stalin, but was betrayed by FDR and Britan was too weak to go on it's own. FDR and Eisenhower, like most Americans of that time, failed to see the Communist threat in time, which put much of Eastern Europe into Soviet hands.

McCarthy has gotten an unfairly negative appraisal - after all, history is written by the winners.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Gustaf on February 02, 2004, 01:38:19 pm
I'm gonna make a few points on FDR and Reagan. First off, M is compeltely right that the percentage of EVs is the thing to look at, anything else is ridiculous. That's like saying that Nader is much more popular than Washington was, b/c Nader recieved more popular votes. And the highest EV-percentage since pre-civil war era IS FDR, in 1936.

One of the left-wingers in these times were Ronald Reagan, btw, who supported freedom of speech for Communists, one of the things that makes him great in my opinion. Just a little reminder, PD. There was not thousands of spies everywhere, I thought McCarthy was well buried, but I guess I was wrong.

To RP: I am pretty sure that Churchill did what he could to fight Stalin, but was betrayed by FDR and Britan was too weak to go on it's own. FDR and Eisenhower, like most Americans of that time, failed to see the Communist threat in time, which put much of Eastern Europe into Soviet hands.

McCarthy has gotten an unfairly negative appraisal - after all, history is written by the winners.

McCarthy went nuts, I think most people would agree on that.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: opebo on February 02, 2004, 01:41:45 pm
I'm gonna make a few points on FDR and Reagan. First off, M is compeltely right that the percentage of EVs is the thing to look at, anything else is ridiculous. That's like saying that Nader is much more popular than Washington was, b/c Nader recieved more popular votes. And the highest EV-percentage since pre-civil war era IS FDR, in 1936.

One of the left-wingers in these times were Ronald Reagan, btw, who supported freedom of speech for Communists, one of the things that makes him great in my opinion. Just a little reminder, PD. There was not thousands of spies everywhere, I thought McCarthy was well buried, but I guess I was wrong.

To RP: I am pretty sure that Churchill did what he could to fight Stalin, but was betrayed by FDR and Britan was too weak to go on it's own. FDR and Eisenhower, like most Americans of that time, failed to see the Communist threat in time, which put much of Eastern Europe into Soviet hands.

McCarthy has gotten an unfairly negative appraisal - after all, history is written by the winners.

McCarthy went nuts, I think most people would agree on that.

The messenger may have been flawed, but the message was a good one.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Gustaf on February 02, 2004, 02:05:09 pm
I'm gonna make a few points on FDR and Reagan. First off, M is compeltely right that the percentage of EVs is the thing to look at, anything else is ridiculous. That's like saying that Nader is much more popular than Washington was, b/c Nader recieved more popular votes. And the highest EV-percentage since pre-civil war era IS FDR, in 1936.

One of the left-wingers in these times were Ronald Reagan, btw, who supported freedom of speech for Communists, one of the things that makes him great in my opinion. Just a little reminder, PD. There was not thousands of spies everywhere, I thought McCarthy was well buried, but I guess I was wrong.

To RP: I am pretty sure that Churchill did what he could to fight Stalin, but was betrayed by FDR and Britan was too weak to go on it's own. FDR and Eisenhower, like most Americans of that time, failed to see the Communist threat in time, which put much of Eastern Europe into Soviet hands.

McCarthy has gotten an unfairly negative appraisal - after all, history is written by the winners.

McCarthy went nuts, I think most people would agree on that.

The messenger may have been flawed, but the message was a good one.

What, ban everyone with the wrong opinions?


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Solidarity Forever on October 23, 2012, 08:16:19 am
Welcome to the forum! Trent Lott would be a decidedly bad choice as VP. Cheney is a good man, but I think we need to have Bush's political heir apparent on the ticket, hopefully Rudy. And I agree, Rudi-Condi would be an unstoppable ticket.


Hehehehe

Bump much?


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: AndrewCA🌹 on October 27, 2012, 03:20:24 pm
Welcome to the forum! Trent Lott would be a decidedly bad choice as VP. Cheney is a good man, but I think we need to have Bush's political heir apparent on the ticket, hopefully Rudy. And I agree, Rudi-Condi would be an unstoppable ticket.


Hehehehe

Bump much?

Sorry, this was when I was a REALLY new poster, and though it was a good idea to bump things. I didn't understand the severe consequences then.


Title: Re: 2004 and beyond.....
Post by: MrMittens on November 15, 2012, 12:52:37 pm
What the  happened to Opebo. He was actually making sense back in 2004.


Title: Re:2004 and beyond.....
Post by: Oh Jeremy Corbyn! on November 26, 2012, 12:39:44 am
I suggest all you dems read Ann Coulter's books "Slander" and "Treason". I also Recommend Sean Hannity's book "Let Freedom Ring". I could recommend a hundred more, but I won't waste my time and post space because I know none of you liberals will ever even make an effort at it.

hahahahahaha