Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (131164)	1/31/2001 1:34:20 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571966

I think Republicans under estimate the anger this last election generated; then again, I may be overestimating. You are probably not overestimating the anger of the leftists (maybe 1/3 of the electorate), but you are greatly overestimating the memory of the voters. In 4 years, half the country will forget who the Democrat candidate was in 2000. Joe, I would not count on that....nothing like this past election has happened in recent history. There are times when the American electorate gets motivated and I bet this is one of those times. However, if my instincts are right, it would have served Bush well to create a gov't within which there was a good mix of Democrats. By this I am assuming Ted Kennedy Democrats. People like Bennet, Jean Kirkpatrik, even Reagan himself were once Democrats. I just don't see any reasonable scenario or reason for Bush to do this. It will not make you, or the rest of the 1/3 of the hard left vote for him, and I don't see how Teddy Kennedy would bring the 1/3 in the middle to Bush's column, so I just don't see the incentive. The Republican Party is losing its constituency; its base is mostly rural, white, christian, upper middle class, older......hardly representative of the majority in this country. I would think that's all the incentive you would need. Bush is IMO a conservative, but a very pragmatic one. Why should he throw it away, capitulate, and govern as a centrist or a liberal? That's not why he ran. I know you think that you think he is stupid, but he is not that stupid and do what you suggest. I know this looks stupid to you but its called thinking outside the box, or vision, or progressive etc. He had an opportunity to expand the scope of the party; bring in new converts, modify its platform. But Bush has no vision and the ones who seem to have some....maybe McCain...are pushed aside by the party. Frankly, I don't care....I would rather see the Republican Party die and a new one emerge that is more in step with this century. ted