Clinton : Country will always be diveded until Republicans stop voting for them

[MissCatholic]

Bill Clinton in a speech to National Student Conference.

'You must have good tactics. It is impossible to describe to someone whos never been apart of it, what its like when the right go after you. And they tell the world you fight for nothing, your bad for the family etc. Many people in our party ask me 'why are they so mean'? I tell them that they do it because IT WORKS. you cant blame them. you have to give them credit.

If you had a buisness that made $100m a year and everytime the public and your opponents said that they are this and that but STILL made $100m a year would you change? NO you wouldn't. The problem is we fall for it everytime. We act like Pavlovs dogs when the Republicans character assassinate. Take John Kerry. Nobody in the public could say yes or no whether John Kerry did good or not. So they just talk about it for weeks and months and destroy his character and YES they still make that $100m a year. The only way it will end is when Republicans stop voting Republican or they stop making $100m a year.'

You have top admit Bill Clinton is very smart!

[MODU]

"You can't have one without the other."  The Democrats do just as good of a job of keeping the nation divided as the Republicans.  Which is good . . . because people on both sides will tire . . . leave their parties . . . come to us third-party/Independents . . . and will usher in a new wave of politics, leaving the two old parties begging at our table for scraps. 

Seriously though, both parties are equally guilty of character assassination and divisiveness.

[TomC]

I give the Republicans more "credit" for the divisiveness right now because they control the government, But both parties are to blame.

The $100m a year thing is just stupid.

[Blue Rectangle]

I give the Republicans more "credit" for the divisiveness right now because they control the government, But both parties are to blame.

The $100m a year thing is just stupid.

Both parties are to blame, but I actually give the Democrats more "credit" because they are out of power and therefore have a stronger interest in undermining public trust in the government, seeking to fracture the Republican base, etc.

I don't have a clue what the point of the $100M a year thing was...

[Speed of Sound]

Bill Clinton in a speech to National Student Conference.

'You must have good tactics. It is impossible to describe to someone whos never been apart of it, what its like when the right go after you. And they tell the world you fight for nothing, your bad for the family etc. Many people in our party ask me 'why are they so mean'? I tell them that they do it because IT WORKS. you cant blame them. you have to give them credit.

If you had a buisness that made $100m a year and everytime the public and your opponents said that they are this and that but STILL made $100m a year would you change? NO you wouldn't. The problem is we fall for it everytime. We act like Pavlovs dogs when the Republicans character assassinate. Take John Kerry. Nobody in the public could say yes or no whether John Kerry did good or not. So they just talk about it for weeks and months and destroy his character and YES they still make that $100m a year. The only way it will end is when Republicans stop voting Republican or they stop making $100m a year.'

You have top admit Bill Clinton is very smart!

i always love Bill's speechs. he is indeed incredibly smart

[Democratic Hawk]

Were Democrats the consensus building pragmatists and Republicans the unfetted ideologues - then the latter would almost certainly be responsible for America being divided. Sadly, I see too much 'liberalism' afflicting the Democratic Party - so I can't really blame either

Dave

[minionofmidas]

One thing that is obvious, though, is that the Republicans' vote base is almost all white, while the Dems have a strong majority of the minority vote, but still do get the majority of their votes from the majority community. In this, very real, sense, the Democratic party is much the bigger boat. The Indian party alignment is quite similar, come to think of it.

[TomC]

One thing that is obvious, though, is that the Republicans' vote base is almost all white, while the Dems have a strong majority of the minority vote, but still do get the majority of their votes from the majority community. In this, very real, sense, the Democratic party is much the bigger boat. The Indian party alignment is quite similar, come to think of it.

hunh? Is this that new math I've been hearing about?

[minionofmidas]

No.
It's confusing with all that "minority" and "majority", but it's correct.

[Blue Rectangle]

To paraphrase the thread title, our country will always be divided until we have single-party rule.

Should we blame the majority for the division that exists?  Sure, because the division favors the majority!  On the other hand, though, the majority would like it if everyone agreed with them, thus eliminating the division.  The minority would also like it if everyone agreed with them, but in the meantime they'd be happy if they could further divide the majority and acquire a piece of it, thus becoming the majority.

My conclusion: the whole uniter/divider thing is meaningless.

[A18]

The problem with the country, or with the government, is that it isn't divided enough. In the long term, I'd like the see a Republican Senate and a Democratic House.

[MissCatholic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

so bushs comment 'i am a uniter not a divider' didnt really hit a home run for you then?

[TomC]

The problem with the country, or with the government, is that it isn't divided enough. In the long term, I'd like the see a Republican Senate and a Democratic House.

Yes, this has its advantages. History shows divided government would be good for markets. If the House and/or senate were Dem, I might look to either party for a Presidential candidate to support.

[Blue Rectangle]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

so bushs comment 'i am a uniter not a divider' didnt really hit a home run for you then?

Nope.  It was a pretty good campaign line, but I never hoped he would live up to it.  Doing what you think is right tends to make some people mad at you; that's just a fact of leadership.  A leader who always seeks unanimous support is a poor, ineffectual leader.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nope.  It was a pretty good campaign line, but I never hoped he would live up to it.  Doing what you think is right tends to make some people mad at you; that's just a fact of leadership.  A leader who always seeks unanimous support is a poor, ineffectual leader.

So a leader with a 56% disapproval rating is a strong leader?

[MODU]

Nope.  It was a pretty good campaign line, but I never hoped he would live up to it.  Doing what you think is right tends to make some people mad at you; that's just a fact of leadership.  A leader who always seeks unanimous support is a poor, ineffectual leader.

So a leader with a 56% disapproval rating is a strong leader?

Approval ratings are pretty much similar to popularity contests.  True leaders will make the unpopular decisions when needed.

[Blue Rectangle]

Nope.  It was a pretty good campaign line, but I never hoped he would live up to it.  Doing what you think is right tends to make some people mad at you; that's just a fact of leadership.  A leader who always seeks unanimous support is a poor, ineffectual leader.

So a leader with a 56% disapproval rating is a strong leader?

A statement is not logically equivalent to its inverse.

[MasterJedi]

Every party keeps the country divided. We don't want our society to turn into "The Giver" with everybody being the same and not having any damn views of their own.

[12th Doctor]

Nope.  It was a pretty good campaign line, but I never hoped he would live up to it.  Doing what you think is right tends to make some people mad at you; that's just a fact of leadership.  A leader who always seeks unanimous support is a poor, ineffectual leader.

So a leader with a 56% disapproval rating is a strong leader?

Winston Churchill's government was thrown out of power before WWII was even over.  Truman's approval rating was less than 20% when he left office.

Strong leadership is not about "going with the crowd".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Winston Churchill's government was thrown out of power before WWII was even over. 

Technically true, but it wasn't his wartime coalition government; it dissolved itself in Spring '45.
Churchill himself remained personally very popular (Labour didn't actually oppose him in his seat and he won over 70% of the vote; a huge figure in the U.K even back when most seats were two party only contests) but his party was very, very unpopular, something not helped by thier decision to oppose the Beveridge Report.
It's an interesting election in many ways; for one thing there was no regional element in the results at all, it was in many ways the last election of the old/real Liberal Party and the accuracy of the polls made people take them seriously for the first time ever over here.