Baby Bush--Iowa What went wrong?
os...@my-deja.com
30%--Alan Keyes 14% was a protest vote.I have been a newspaper writer
and political activist for a long number of years.
No matter how you spin it Alan Keyes took 14% of Baby Bush's needed
votes in Iowa.
Let's take a look at Baby Bush--as more political advisors/analysts
have said many times--electing a President isnt a matter of money.
(Clinton was out spent by President Bush and Bob Dole and still won.)
President Bush candidate for reelection."Who do you trust?"
Bob Dole WW2 veteran--character counts,and lost to President Clinton.
Why didnt Gov. Bush come through--character wasnt there.His whole life
has been that of a protected mamma's boy-rich man's son;with an easy
18% of the vote bought Texas political style--as President "Landslide
Lyndon";once said he won the US Senator Seat by one bought vote more
than his opponent;the second time he ran for the senate.
Iowa isnt Texas--New Hampshire isnt Texas--Senator Grassley of Iowa!
No matter how you spin it Baby Bush jr would be a good debit insurance
salesman! But will never see this country's White House--no mamma's
boys need apply!
Melvin Fullerton Author My World 1999-2000
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Robert C. Thomas
>
>
> Why didnt Gov. Bush come through--
Forget how to count again, Mel?? Bush won, right?
Melvin Fullerton Author of iincessant bullshit.
bob
Doris Carter Ford
: os...@my-deja.com wrote in article <86jifd$r7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
: bob
It does seem he could have done a little better.
Iowa's caucususes are a bit difficult to call.
It is interesting but just the opening salvo on a battle
that one figures will end up with Bush vs Gore in the fall. Perhaps
the performance of the competitors and what they represent will determine
the platform and the VP candidate.
Doris F.
Brooks in Texas
What went wrong in Iowa? Nothing as far as I can see. George W.
from what I have read and seen got a higher percentage of the
vote than any Republican in the last 20-30 years. I am glad
Allan Keys got 14%> I am Glad Forbes got 31%. They are all
espousing about the same thing. Moral courage, Tax relief in
rewrites of the tax law and protecting the family and making it
stronger and just trying to be good. That adds up to about 86%
for a good platform. They are just choosing the messenger. What
is wrong with that?
Shady Old White Man.
--
Carolyn Brooks DANDC...@compuserve.com
apache11
os...@my-deja.com
Brooks in Texas <76765...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
Mel wrote:$200 million follar Moronic Man and could only get 41%
of the vote in lil'ole' Iwoa?Sheesh! Bubble done bursted--
nevah beat Al Gore the women and minorities universal healthcare
candidate--there's a lot of them doctahs and nuhrses out there--
a whole passle of women teachers--tha's why Baby Bush only got 41%
and Alan Keyes stole 14% frum he'uns-Baby Bush!!
Radical Right's ain' gonna pay yu'uns way to the White House and
yu'uns caint win by throwing votes away!!
Like anti-abortion--anti-healthcare-anti-teachers-anti-unions-anti-
environment-anti-----------------------Clinton Prosperity-----if'n
there's anything you can be agin--you will be--like even education!!
Melvin Fullerton Author My World 1999-2000
>
>
Earl Evleth
: os...@my-deja.com wrote in article <86jifd$r7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
:>
:>
:> Why didnt Gov. Bush come through--
: Forget how to count again, Mel?? Bush won, right?
He did not win big. In being below 50% give the "impression"
that more were with the others than with him. But the
caucus system itself does not appear that democratic. I
personally discount it but the media will give the image
that whatever Bush says about "winning", it is just
a bit different.
An New Hampshire is next, a pipsqueek state. It is
all a bit weird.
Brooks in Texas
Mel, Mel, Mel, If I can read right, the 5th place finisher on the
right had a higher vote count than your guy on the left. Your
guy barely beat out old Orin in vote count. Percentages don't
tell the whole do they?
Shady Old White Man
Murphy
primary election? Thought I heard that somewhere.
Even so, a primary only obligates the delegates to vote as they are
instructed for the first round of voting at the convention; whereas a caucus
obligates nothing. Point being, Earl's complaint about the caucus system
being non democratic is mysterious, given the intent of a caucus, i.e. a
private meeting of members of a political party to plan action or to select
delegates for a nominating convention.
Rita wrote:
>
> Earl Evleth <e...@liliput.lct.jussieu.fr> wrote in message
> news:86n0r4$32i$5...@vishnu.jussieu.fr...
>
> . But the
> > caucus system itself does not appear that democratic. I
> > personally discount it but the media will give the image
> > that whatever Bush says about "winning", it is just
> > a bit different.
> >
> The presidential caucuses in Iowa are rather quaint -- many of
> them are held in private homes, usually the home of a party
> stalwart (Republican or Democrat as the case may be). One must
> be registered with the respective party to attend, and one also
> must make the effort to go out in the evening and spend a
> couple hours at the least in a meeting. This surely
> discourages many from participating.
>
> Years ago, back in the early days of this century, I was the
> ring leader of a group to go to the Democratic party caucus in
> my district and get votes for Sen. Eugene McCarthy. Most often
> only a handful of "regulars" attended the caucus, but this year
> we had managed to round up quite a few extras on our side. I
> almost had a twinge of guilt as we accepted the hospitality
> (put the coat on the bed, served coffee and cookies) of our
> hosts, who along with the party regulars were supporting
> Humphrey, and then voted ourselves in as county convention
> delegates for McCarthy. They did not know "what hit them",
> since before this election year no one had shown the least
> interest in the caucuses.
>
> This was before the days of the TV media hoopla, so I imagine
> the respective parties are now far more prepared for dissent.
--
-----
Murph
*****
Stop Global Whining.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." (Aldous Huxley)
"The fleeting years are slipping by..."
os...@my-deja.com
Mel wrote:Come on stop making up excises--Baby Bush Mommy's boy got 14%
of his vote taken away from him in white Iowa by Alan Keyes A black
man!!Over all 59% of Iowans said no way Texican!how much clearer could
the good decent people make it THAT THEY DONT ANY PARTS OF THE 4200
MILLION DOLLAR MORONIC-Rigged Draft Dodger-Excocaine user-boozer-in
Iowa Obviously character counts!
Melvin Fullerton Author My World 1999-2000
richard...@usa.net wrote:
> Isn't Iowa just about the only state that still uses a caucus rather
than
Murphy
> I think the notion the Iowa caucuses are "undemocratic" might
> be not technically correct, but I do think they discourage
> participation in the primary.
Does Iowa have a primary in addition to the caucus? If so, I didn't know
that. Or do you mean primaries in other states?
By the way, not all primaries are for "registered" Dems or Repubs only.
F'rinstance, in Texas, any voter may vote in either primary, but is barred
from then voting in the opposite camp, i.e. I could vote in the Democrat
primary but then would not be able to vote in the Repub primary. There is no
"party" registration. In the general election, I am free to vote for
whomever I please; anything from straight party line (la palanca) to
splitting my vote or even not voting for a candidate who is in an unopposed
race.
The caucus - primary - convention system may not be perfect, but at least it
seems to get people involved in the process. Maybe it isn't "totally
representative", but I'm not familiar enough with whatever alternatives
there may be to say that it's fatally flawed.
--
Murph
*****
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in
the opposite direction." (E.F. Schumacher)
Stop Global Whining.
Doris Carter Ford
Organization: CNI/Prairienet
Murphy <bad...@mythirdage.com> wrote:
: Rita wrote:
:> I think the notion the Iowa caucuses are "undemocratic" might
:> be not technically correct, but I do think they discourage
:> participation in the primary.
: Does Iowa have a primary in addition to the caucus? If so, I didn't know
: that. Or do you mean primaries in other states?
: By the way, not all primaries are for "registered" Dems or Repubs only.
: F'rinstance, in Texas, any voter may vote in either primary, but is barred
: from then voting in the opposite camp, i.e. I could vote in the Democrat
: primary but then would not be able to vote in the Repub primary. There is no
: "party" registration. In the general election, I am free to vote for
: whomever I please; anything from straight party line (la palanca) to
: splitting my vote or even not voting for a candidate who is in an unopposed
: race.
In Illinois it is the same way. You may be a registered Whig but
you can select which party's menu of candidates you want to vote.
When Mosley-Braun lost the election people had crossed over to vote for
Fitzgerald in the primaries. They thought since in the primary race he,
Fitzgerald had openly ran as a deep pocketed religious right he would be
easier to defeat in the fall. Once he was nominated he grabbed the middle
in all his campaigning and those who cared knew his dedication to the extreme
right. Off hand the way he is running his first stint as senator he
means it to be just that....his first!
: The caucus - primary - convention system may not be perfect, but at least it
Murphy
> Yes, this is one of the inconsistencies of the primary system.
> Some are perhaps less democratic than others?
I'm still a little bit in the dark about this "less democratic" system
that you and Earl have mentioned. No partisan slams - I really don't
understand what democratic ideal is being missed by the system in use
today. Do you think you could flesh out this concept a bit for me?
Thanks.
-----
Murph