Reply To: emotional support during Election 2004

Home Forums Everything Else emotional support during Election 2004 Reply To: emotional support during Election 2004

#3581
Anonymous
Inactive

Regardless of what one’s political persuasion may be, it is pretty tough to argue that the democrats didn’t hitch their wagon to the most hate filled, vitriolic elements of their party. (as the Republicans did in 1996).

If you go back and look at my posts, you will see, over and over, how I pointed out this simple fact- people would rather be inspired than angered, uplifted than scared.. Also, anger is a 2 edged sword. I said, all along, that , In their zeal to gin up as much hatred, bitterness and partisan venom as possible among their own base, democrats did not stop to consider how much their tactics were nauseating and angering main stream America.

The backlash, as I always predicted, was incredible.
However, even I failed to see [b:qw875gkh]just how[/b:qw875gkh].

60,600,000 votes!?
SIXTY MILLION, SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND VOTES!!!!??????
Are you kidding me!?

First time since 1924, an incumbent was reelected with majorities in both houses. Also, the number of Democrats, in the Senate is the lowest in 70 years!

The razor thin win in Washington gives the Republicans control of 30 states including the 4 biggest.

Republicans picked up the Tennessee legislature and swept [b:qw875gkh]all 5 [/b:qw875gkh]races for Senate seats to replace retiring Democrats. In Lousiana, the Republican got 51% in a 4 way race! (unheard of).

If hate was all the democrats had (and that is certainly my humble opinion), there is precious little evidence that it worked.

Many people [including your son-in-lae *g*] have chided me for my unabashed support of Republicans. well, i only passionatly support [b:qw875gkh]some[/b:qw875gkh] Republicans. I support republicans who believe in a culture of life, believe all peoples deserve to be free, think it is immoral when a government takes too much [b:qw875gkh]from[/b:qw875gkh] you to do too much [b:qw875gkh]for[/b:qw875gkh] you, believes that [i:qw875gkh]tolerance[/i:qw875gkh] should also apply to those with traditional, Judeo-Christian beliefs and who believe that Judges should interpret the law and not legislate from the Bench.

I think the issue is not that the Republican party is overly friendly to active, pro-life, pro-family, orthodox Catholics and Christians, but that the leadership of the Democratic party is so outwardly hostile to them.

People like Colin Powell, Rudy Guilliani, and George Pataki, unabased social liberals all, are Republicans in good standing.
However, conservative, pro-lofe Democrats, like John Breaux and Bob casey are told to zip their lips.

I just found out, to my shock and amazement, that incoming Senate Minority leader Harry Reid is Pro-life.

How much do you want to bet that he will be told to line up to filibuster any Pro-life Judge Bush nominates?

The democratic party, in my opinion, is so hostage to the trial lawyers, radical gays, enviromental extremists, Unions and the abortion mills, that they are powerless to nominate someone with any appeal to mainstream America.

Until they change, I predict America will just keep getting redder and redder.