Yes he is moderate compared to you. But he raised taxes and pretty much despised what Regan stood for, before he got tagged as his running mate. Prior to that he was a liberal Republican. Like Rockefeller he was from the elitist left wing of the Party which was liberal. But I suppose you do not remember them. He then moved to the center (pretend) like ever other liberal in an attempt to get elected. In the contest Bush represented the Republican party's eastern establishment liberal-moderate wing, whereas Reagan represented the extreme right-wing of the party. Bush attacked Reagan as an ultraconservative. From Wikipedia. He started as a Goldwater republican. Then a moderate and in the end an Eastern establishment liberal supporting world govt. a perfect liberal. He also never won elections on his own.
Wikipedia? LOL.... What the fuck, did you write the article in Wikipedia? I think you are not the real jem, I think you are a replacement jem, just like stu is a replacement stu...
From what I have seen, I like Gore and I like Hillary. If either of them gets nominated and then wins the next election, the winner will be America. At the very least, relatively speaking.
Do you consider the famous "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists? a reliable centrist point of view? Because if it's not, then why did Bush win?
Do you remember Bill Clinton's speech to the American people on 12/16/98? "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
zzz with a typical liberal response. avoid dealing with the facts at all costs. Bottom line zzz is you were wrong again and you have no credible response.
What facts? Your party elects Bush senior and when he proves to be a miserable failure you start claiming he is a liberal. Your party elects Bush Junior, gives him full 100% support for 6 years and when he ruins everything he touches and proves to be 100 times worse than his dad you start claiming he is a liberal. Bush and republicans govern from the far right but run to the center during election campaigns, claim to be compassionate conservatives, make centrists like Ahnold, McCain and Giuliani keynote speakers of the gop convention. But you accuse liberals not your own party of having no principles and "moving to the center in an attempt to get elected". What facts are you talking about jem? Reagan raised taxes too, that's a fact. How liberal was Reagan?
jem, you used to make arguments. Now all you do is flame and bitch. I don't know if you have something going on in your life that is making you this way, if so, I am sorry for you. However, if the "new" jem is the standard, I will pass....
Bush poll numbers are way down. 31% last time i noticed. Maverick and a few other neo-cons are holdouts for sure. Some people are just slow to the dance and used to picking up the leftovers. .....