Did you remember George I hitting hard over the paroled repeat offender? George II over the need for spirituality in government?
Don't see much left-leaning in any of that. It may be standard public-choice theory, but the theory itself, like what it describes, is an ideological, not analytic device. dms ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gassler Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Democratic Party? I seem to remember George I hitting hard at the press early on and caving in to the religious right on the convention platform. That shored up his support from the extreme right. His acceptance speech attacked the Democrats but also mentioned the thousand points of light, showing in that cheap way conservatives do that he sympathizes with the poor and downtrodden without actually doing any significant work for them. His campaign after the convention attacked Dukakis's personality but went easy on rightist rhetoric. Time magazine after the election described how he shored up his rightwing base and then moved left to capture the middle of the electorate. They stressed that Dukakis did not do the same with the Rainbow Coalition, who sat out the election in many cases, giving George I the election. George II made his speech at Bob Jones University on the way to the convention, which also shored up his relations with the right. Then somewhere along the way he made noises about "compassionate conservatism" to soothe the middle and convince the press to see him as a moderate. All the while of course, his campaign was smearing Gore all over the place, so to speak. He almost won the election this way. (I stand corrected on my slip of the tongue -- keyboard -- saying he actually won it.) All this is standard public-choice theory, developed by right-wing economists to undermine legitimate democracy. But this particular model, based on the idea of the median voter in a single left-right continuum of issues, is not particularly antidemocratic. >Please tell me how either Bush moved to the left to win a nomination and >then moved left again to win an election, ignoring for the moment, the >self-contradiction between your first paragraph "Bush was not elected," and >your description of how both Bush's won their elections. > >dms > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Scott Gassler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >George W. Bush in the 2000 election." > >George W. Bush was not elected in 2000. Gore was. Bush took the presidency > using his family friends in the Supreme Court. >> >>> Both Bushes did the same thing on the right to get elected: they >pretended >> to be more right-wing than they really were, then moved to the left to get >> the nomination, and further to the left to win the election. That's the >way >> elections are won. Once in power however, Bush Jr moved back to his core >> constituency and is right-wing again. Kerry could do the same. > >
