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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (66230)	1/15/2003 5:02:52 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

John, Speaking of my grand unifying theory, I think that there is a a growing group in the US that his forming around the combination of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and a lite touch of libertariansim. Andrew Sullivan calls these folks 'eagles'. They (we) are not natural Republicans nor Democrats. I think that Trent Lott was sacrificed to the 'eagle' part of the Republican party. The dominant party of the next 20 years will be the one that can capture this group. I think that this group plugged their nose and voted for Bush in 2000 more because they didn't like Gore's class based rhetoric than anything specifically attractive in Bush. There strong post 9-11 support of Bush is contingent on him being effective. He punted with North Korea a bit and his approval rating dropped a bit. We are a pragmatic bunch. Paul

To: JohnM who wrote (66230)	1/15/2003 7:08:17 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And you wanted me to wear a "Dunce" cap because I said Bible Study was replacing Sex Toy Parties! Some of the numbers used are "iffy" IMO. I think the % of people who are virgins are marriage would go up if you took out the ones who only went to bed with the person they finally married. But people who vote the social issues first will vote left, that is for sure. This is a long term advantage for the Democrats. I don't mind the "Toleration" I do mind "Acceptance." Sex is one issue that is dividing the voters. Church going is another. As Ann Coulter put it, "The Religious Right vs the Atheist Left." A "Third Rail" issue. Neither party can really sell it. Race is a big one. Sidebar on the last election. The Arab vote went 88% for Bush because of Lieberman. You don't think they would vote for a Jew, do you? The Black issue we have beaten to death. The Brown one gets me. How do you justify racial advantages because someone has a Spanish name? If you look at the younger voters coming up, who are voting in the majority for the Republicans, I think the Libertarian economic ideas are the reason. They will not vote for the "Class Warfare" that the Dems are selling. They may not be rich, but they think rich. I think this issue, more than any other, is going to give the Republicans a long term advantage over the Dems. Frum stated in his book that the reason Tom Ridge, (who Bush really likes) did not get the VP slot was his pro-choice position. The real struggle, IMO, in the Republican party is to get rid of this issue. The Dems have to move to an economic position that will attract the younger voters. So both parties have a central struggle going on. You can't get to the younger voters on the "Anti-War" platform outside of the Colleges. The blue collar kids are pissed about 911 and want us to take on everybody. Nixon defused the anti-war movement back in the '60s when he put the lottery in and the kids knew they would not be drafted. It really dropped down afterwards. The young males today can watch the War on TV like a computer game. All "warm up the tanks" and no skin off their noses. Those pictures of our Special Forces in Afghanistan, furred up and mounted on ponies, was right out of "The Man Who Would be King!"