It's not that hard to find the list of states with anti-gay marriage legislation during the 2004 elections.
I am leaving the Republican Party
- Thread starter Cancel10
- Start date
The law is/was that all persons have a right to marry. It is the homosexual agenda that intends to force their morality onto the laws that already exist. They want to have civil unions...they can go for it. Abortion kills human life. As a person who believes the human life is worth protecting, I'll fight to protect it. You don't want to protect human life then fucking vote your conscience and let me fucking vote mine...see I can use bad words too
He had no intention of controlling the borders, therefore the "hard spot" was never an option. His only option was the one he religiously adhered to, that of removing essential freedom.
Remember in 2000 when he promised no nation-building wars? Remember when the Pill Bill was the crappiest legislation to exist? It was nothing compared to what was created, and my, our, party followed right along. That was what lost many people. People who believe in personal liberty stayed home. There was no option that they believed would work for their interests in the last election. They were able to forestall the loss with directed legislative ballot initiatives in specific states, but it couldn't, and didn't, last forever.
The R Party turning its back on personal liberty is what has done it in.
I thought you would have researched a bit because you seemed so interested.I thought you knew since you spoke so authoritatively
Start with Ohio (barely won by Bush that year) and Michigan and work you way into others.
another state that went to Obama that voted Bush...
North Dakota. (Look it up, an initiative existed).
WTF does the PA have to do with religion? He went with the option that was the most palpatable to congress. There was no way congress would have allowed rounding up foreign nationals and closing borders, to blame it on religion is totally without merit!
I remember in 2000 that he did not have the foresight of 9/11. I am as disapointed at many of the decisions he made, but I am also a forgiving realist who believes he had some pretty difficult damned decisions to make.
I should have realized that sarcasm is difficult to put in print. I was using limited in relation to ability and competence, not quantity.
That said, I'm in agreement with your entire post.
It has nothing to do with it. You aren't paying attention. They used legislative initiatives to get people out to vote that otherwise may not have because of things like PA. It was a strategy, and it worked as long as they could milk it.
And I would have preferred he made the mistakes on the side of personal liberty rather than so consistently on the other side. On the side of smaller and more efficient government rather than larger.... so forth.
People who voted Obama hoping for "change" are already seeing that some of that change isn't pleasant, they believed that wiretapping would end, for instance.
You created the argument, I just recognized it as BS
ND and Michigan were not swing (battleground states). Ohio very well may have gone Bush due to the gay marriage legislation, but it was the "only" state that did so that could have had any impact on the election and there is no proof that this in fact gave Bush the win.
At any rate the so called "religious right" vote was statistically unchanged from 2000 to 2004.
It was the state that won him the election. The argument isn't BS, it is what happened. Without this kind of introspection our party will be harmed, we need to seek out what lost support among people that want to vote, but chose to stay home rather than vote for McCain.
Think about that logic; if as you claim the Ohio vote gave a republican a win because of his relationship to so called religious positions, let's abandoned them so we can win elections? hummmmm
USATODAY on 2004
Let's bring the voters that otherwise would have been there back to the party by going back to the foundation of the party. Individual liberty, responsibility, limited government.
Make it unnecessary to try tricks by acting as the members of the party want their leaders to act rather than trying to use a limited strategy that can only work a few times.
It's foolish to believe that what caused the 2008 debacle for the party is what we should adhere to.
Another state that went to Bush then later to Obama... Montana. There is a veritable list of them, most of them had one of those ballot initiatives... It's a very limited strategy that would work only once or twice and IMO it leaves the strongest republican constituency out in the cold.
As I have stated before, I have no problem with campaigning on limited government. That said, to ignore a significant percentage of a parties constituency is dumb.
The 2004 election had 11 states with anti gay marriage initiatives on the ballot. A number of those states did not vote Bush in 2000 or in 2004. Those initiatives may be religious right initiatives, but they were on those ballots because the homosexual agenda was targeting their own push in each of those states.
Bush won Montana in 2000 without any legislation about homosexual marriage.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Been there done that Tab. I wouldn't worry to much about the party ideology stuff. Ulimately it's the man or woman you are actually voting for.
The problem with the Libertarian, or any third party, in our two party system is that in our present two party system that they are not affective. The reason, fair or unfair, is because they cannot, from a practical stand point collect a large enough coalition to obtain a ruling coalition and our system is an "all or nothing" election system. It is not a proportionate one.
That makes third party's essentially impotent to the two major parties that can gather ruling majorities. Now, wether we care to admit it or not the success of both parties is that they are both broad based coalitions of often disparate interests (for example, the interests of economic conservatives are often far removed from those of social conservatives.).
So there's a political practical reality. If you're not a member of one these two major ruling coalition you're chances of advancing a political agenda, any political agenda, are not good to state the obvious.
So that essentially means that to be affective you really need to be a member of one of the major ruling coalitions. The really hard question is which of these two coalitions best represents your interests and values which is a hard question when it pretty obvious that neither party really has your best interest, as an individual, at heart.
But as an independant or as a member of a third party you lessen your individual political influence over that of the major parties for the fact that they either have or can obtain a ruling majority, implement their agenda and completely ignore yours. As long as our elections are "winner takes all" and are not proportionate thats just the way it is (and I'm neither advocating for or against proporionate elections, just making a point) and the political facts of life with our current political system.
The lesson I learned when I switched party affiliation in 2004 is that it's not just about having your views and your values being represented. It's about having your voice heard at all. So try not to look for a party that best represents your views and values but rather look for the party that does the best job of listening to your voice. That's the party that's doing the better job of representing you.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I couldn't disagree more. When I think of limiting government I do not think of that in literal terms. The Government is the size we need it to be to provide the level of civic services the people feel are needed. When I think of limiting government I am speaking of limiting their powers. In that respect, Limited Government always has been and always will be an integral part of our Republic.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
It did fail during the Bush years. It failed to stop the increase of powers and the scope of powers of our Federal Government.
Again, I am more concerned about limiting governments powers then it's actual size (not that that's not important) but the more important issue is limiting goverments powers.
Limiting the power of goverment failed during the Bush years as government powers actually increased dramatically. In that respect limited government failed during the Bush years as government powers were not limited but in fact increased.
Last edited:
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET.
IT DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET.
If one doesn't like regulation, perhaps they should seek another planet .. where they don't know any better. This world just got all the example it will ever need about the importance of regulation.
The notion of "limited government" comes from those who believe the individual is more important than society. That notion too is slipping away, particularly as resources continue to dwindle, like water. Should we privatize water?
Conservative ideology will continue it's path to oblivion and the Libertarian Party will continue to be the party of dissaffected republicans.
IT DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET.
If one doesn't like regulation, perhaps they should seek another planet .. where they don't know any better. This world just got all the example it will ever need about the importance of regulation.
The notion of "limited government" comes from those who believe the individual is more important than society. That notion too is slipping away, particularly as resources continue to dwindle, like water. Should we privatize water?
Conservative ideology will continue it's path to oblivion and the Libertarian Party will continue to be the party of dissaffected republicans.
Yet the decline in support began, thus the initiative. Bush barely carried the vote in 2004 in Montana, ND, and Ohio and that was with the initiative. Support for Bush started to fall among small-government, personal liberty republicans about 2 years into his first term.
It's silly to deny the strategy, we saw it unfold before our eyes, saw it work, and then later saw the folly in 2008. If you deny that the strategy was no longer working (mostly because the Ds got smart and started agreeing, by mouth if not heart, rather than fighting it) in 2008 then I have a magical two-nicorn to sell you, it will make your wishes come true.
Socrtease
Verified User
A goat?