Democrats can no longer just complain about the policy in Iraq. Now Democrats need to offer solutions. We have a decision to make: either we're in Iraq to *win*, or we're not. If we're not there to win, why bother? Continuing a war we do not intend to win does not help anyone. Either we need to (A) deploy a bunch more troops (50K minimum), in which case Democrats will have to supply many of the votes to make it happen and will be on the hook for the results one way or the other, or (B) get the hell out of there, the consequences be damned, and the sooner the better.
Is it the majority party's job to direct war strategy and foreign policy?
I mean, I agree with the sentiment -- but the idea that, 'Now that you've won you have to fix it' is a bit disingenuous. The President still has to lead on this, God help him. It's his job. I hope Baker and Gates will be able to help craft a new strategy that is sensible, and has a chance to work.
I am glad that Republicans seem to be committed to 'getting back to their roots' -- I hope they manage to do it. But you'd do well to bear in mind that just as it's hard to have a 'Camelot' without Kennedy, or someone like him -- it's also going to be hard to bring back 'Morning in America' without Reagan, or someone like him.
Both parties spend too much time triangulating, and not enough time doing what's best for the country.
Both parties need better leaders.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Democrats wield little clout on Iraq. This is Bush's war. But Rumsfeld's resignation and replacement with Gates rings the death knell for the neocons.
I am guessing that the old hands will once again bail out George W. Bush. Gates is a confidante of Brent Scowcroft and, of course, Jim Baker.
All I can say is that it is comforting to have the grown-ups in charge of foreign policy again instead of the fringe neocon crowd of Richard Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the gang.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I think the problem is that hte voters can't even find conservatism. The Republicans lost track of what it was to be conservative and instead became Reactionary. They were not longer about moving slowly and cautiously but about moving back and fighting battles that have long since been decided.
It'd be like Speaker Pelosi raising gun control as a major cause.
I question your statement that the voters did not reject 'conservatism'. What definition of conservatism are we discussing here: neo-conservatism, paleo-conservatism, classical liberalism? Voters definitely rejected the former. One thing I think your post lacks is the notion that you think you can prevent one of the fundamental rules of politics: power corrupts.
It would be wonderful if we could embrace an ideology that would remain static and permanent no matter how much power the party consolidates. A pattern in history indicates that this static tendency does not last. When consolidation of power occurs, voters properly react. The political pendulum swings in one direction as a sign that the opposing party has become bloated and lost touch with its foundations. Voters then send the pendulum in the opposite direction to compensate. The problem with Republicans is not that they lost sight of conservatism, it is that they had too much power. This election made this pronouncement loudly: corruption and incompetence will not be tolerated, especially when it appears that your party favors corporations, kickbacks, and cronyism over traditional conservative ideals.
You do need to return to your roots, but that is only possible by stripping the power of the party away. You should see this election as a blessing and a chance to recover some semblance of your definition of 'conservative' before it got crushed under the monolith of neo-conservatism.
McCain was arguing for 50,000 more troops today, but I don't think it's the Democrats Bush would have to worry about should he make such a recommendation.
He would need to convince the American public and he would need heavy-duty sign-on from military brass, active and past, to sell it.
If he does that, then and only then will Democrats have a decision to make. My guess is that they would fund the additional troops, but only with a timeline attached.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
.... they can really only use that in protest. That does not change the strategy directly. The President still has to be willing to listen.
They could attempt to bargain by threatening to cut funding in order to force the President's hand, and make him adopt proposed changes in strategy. But that's not a 'best case' solution -- that's a 'worst case' solution.
The best thing that could happen would be for all the smart people in both parties to work together to fix our Iraq strategy, if it can be fixed.
That's what I hope happens.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
The Republicans lost track of what it was to be conservative and instead became Reactionary. They were not longer about moving slowly and cautiously but about moving back and fighting battles that have long since been decided.
Isn't this backwards?
The Republican majority of '95-'96 is the only one that could be plausibly described as "reactionary." There was real, serious talk of eliminating several entire federal departments, eliminating farm subsidies, and dismantling the federal Medicaid program. If Newt Gingrich had his way, nontrivial parts of the New Deal and Great Society would have been repealed.
Now, some of those proposals never had a chance of even getting through the House, much less the Senate or past a Clinton veto, but the Republicans became *less* conservative over the years, not *more* conservative. They went from talk of *getting rid* of the Department of Education to endorsing a massive expansion of its role.
Expanding the Department of Education isn't reactionary, it isn't conservative... it's liberal.
"Big government conservative" = "liberal"
"Compassionate conservative" = "liberal"
And when Republicans govern like liberals... what's the point?
'06 proves that the Republicans cannot win as the "Diet Coke" or the "Bud Light" party of "a little less expansion of government than the other guys."
The result? The logical end to Grover Norquist's "drown the federal government in the bathtub" dream -- Cheney and company looted the government in the process of breaking the government.
"Two birds with one stone" and all that.
These guys were never about beinig conservative in the traditional sense. They were about the money. They were/are bank robbers who are in the process of carrying out the biggest heist in history. Hundreds of billions of dollars funneled into the pockets of their pals through the war, phony "fath-based" programs and giveraways to industries like Medicare D to the pharma giants.
That's why they like the "incompetence" tag. Because then they can turn around and say, "See? Government is not a agood way to solve these problems! Look at Katrina!"
They got us coming and going.
But they were never classic conservatives. Thay had no interest in actually governing. Just $$$$$$$$$$$$.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Yes, it's true that power corrupts. That's why the Constitution provides for a limited government with enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights, rather than an unlimited government that can do whatever it wants.
The best way to fight political corruption is certainly not to pass some sort of "anti-lobbyist" bill or something. (If a Congressman with a six-figure salary and a generous federal pension gets corrupted by a $25 meal with a lobbyist, that's pretty sad.) Sometimes "kick the bums out" works. But really, if you want to attack political corruption, you have to attack the nearly $3T federal budget.
If a lobbyist can spend $100,000 to earn a federal appropriation of $10M, that's a very good deal for the lobbyist. When the federal government spends nearly $3 trillion every year, the potential for abuse is huge.
We need to put the federal government on a diet. That's what the "spirit of '94" and the "Reagan Revolution" were all about -- reducing the size and power of the federal government.
What definition of conservatism are we discussing here: neo-conservatism, paleo-conservatism, classical liberalism?
Small government conservatism. The central principle of small government conservatism is precisely what I just said: "the size and power of the federal government needs to be reduced."
The classic Republican coalition in modern times is really a collection of three groups:
- Southern social conservatives
- Western libertarians
- Northeastern fiscally conservative moderates
The reason the Republican coalition used to work is that the three groups' interests aligned. The NE moderates wanted the budget balanced and therefore supported budget cuts. The libertarians supported both budget and tax cuts. And the social conservatives viewed the federal government as having a destructive influence on the "traditional family" and traditional religious values.
This alliance between libertarians and social conservatives is the classic "fusionism" theory of conservatism that dates back to Barry Goldwater.
Goldwater and Reagan were from the Western/libertarian wing of the party; Bush 43 is from the Southern/social conservative wing of the party; Bush 41 and Gerald Ford were from the NE moderate wing.
In the House: Pence and Shadegg, and to a lesser extent Boehner, are from the Western/libertarian wing. DeLay and Blunt were from the Southern/social conservative wing. In previous days, Armey represented the libertarian wing, while Gingrich was somewhere in between.
In the Senate: Mitch McConnell is the libertarian wing, Frist and Lott were the social conservative wing.
(Note that you don't have to be from the actual region to belong to a particular wing.)
Sometimes "kick the bums out" works. But really, if you want to attack political corruption, you have to attack the nearly $3T federal budget.
But I do not think the corruption (of this recent administration anyway) stems from social programs or anything you would find fault with in the budget, but from misuse of 'legitimate' purposes of the government, such as the utilization of the military for war-profiteering and cronyism.
Bush and his loyalists cleverly instigated his corrupt schemes by abusing what conservatives hold sacred: they gave tax cuts to the wealthy to appease the libertarians (and to a lesser extent the fiscal conservatives) though it did not directly benefit many save the upper-echelons; they created more bureaucracy by promoting faith-based programs to satisfy his social conservatives (all the while playing up the threat of the Muslim and the homosexual) while laughing behind the back of the religious and partaking in extreme coital hypocrisy; and (as I stated previously) they used sanctioned expenditures that fiscal conservatives would not gripe about for conniving purposes such as no-bid contracts and war profiteering.
This is corruption done Republican style. Throw in a few Abramoffs ($25 dinners, ha) and Delays, and we have ourselves a party without a soul.
All the while, you guys ate it up. I'm not saying that conservatives should look forward to democratic leadership, but we did take a huge monkey off your back.
Although very few, this time around. I agree with (or can't find anything to disagree with) many of your points. But:
- MCRI passes in Michigan in spite of overwhelming elite opposition
If the rag-tag group of unemployed potheads, townie regulars, and retirees I was surrounded by tonight constitutes the nation's "elite", then this is news to me. Sure, in favor of affirmative action, you have people like college professors, but you also have the economically slumped area of Detroit. In the pro-Prop.2 side, you have a wealthy Californian behind it, and it received much of its political support from even more wealthy businessmen like DeVos; you also have the economically slumped not-Detroit who voted for it. I'm clearly missing the "elite" part of your equation.
- Chafee loses. (With Republicans like him, who needs Democrats?)
The kind that would have liked a Senate majority, but that's just me.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Er... only if your sole criterion for "liberal" is "expand the government". Otherwise, these ideologies are on more or less opposite sides of the aisle.
Examples: a federal amendment to ban gay marriage qualifies as expanding the government's powers to dictate what used to be considered state policy. If your only criterion for "liberal" is expansion of government, then a federal gay marriage ban is liberal. Increased federal funding towards our immigration problem, with a massive dump of money into a wall along Mexico? Liberal, as well.
I think you're conflating things that really don't go together well. Government expansion is a tool, not an ideology - and it can be put in the service of multiple, competing ideologies.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I do not think the corruption (of this recent administration anyway) stems from social programs or anything you would find fault with in the budget, but from misuse of 'legitimate' purposes of the government, such as the utilization of the military for war-profiteering and cronyism.
Errr... the conservatives I've been reading the last 6 years have been screaming bloody murder over all of the following:
1. Earmarks
2. Medicare prescription drug benefit
3. Steel tariffs
4. 2002 farm bill
5. No Child Left Behind
6. McCain-Feingold
7. 527 group "reform"
Those are the top ones that immediately come to mind. Each one of these items has seriously pissed off conservatives of many different stripes.
The *only* argument that was *ever* offered to conservatives in favor of many of these policies is that they were somehow needed in order to guarantee electoral victory to preserve the majority. Those arguments (which were never very convincing to us in the first place) have now been proven to be complete garbage. These policies did *not* guarantee electoral victory. For example, passing the Medicare drug plan won the GOP plaudits among AARP... for about a month or two, until AARP went back to fighting Republicans on Social Security reform.
Abramoff was directly connected to the earmark issue (indeed, Abramoff could be said to have *specialized* in the earmarks for dollars business). In general the excessive coziness between Republicans and K street lobbyists also contributed to items (2), (3), and (4), at minimum, and probably also item (7). Conservatives were pissed over Abramoff, too. We don't want government to take sides *in favor of* business -- we just want to get government off business's back. Government is supposed to be an impartial arbiter, not a picker of sides.
One of the reason Pence is such a great candidate for minority leader is that he had no part in so much of this garbage -- one of the few Republicans to vote *against* the prescription drug plan, for example.
Rest assured, conservatives have not been happy with the results of the last 6 years. There have been victories here and there that conservatives *are* proud of, like Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court, CAFTA, and the tax cuts, but not much else. Most of the real conservative accomplishments were enacted in '95-'98.
From 1995 through 2000, Republicans really did shrink the federal government. Non-defense, non-interest-on-the-debt spending by the federal government fell from 13.65% of GDP in 1995 to 12.88% of GDP in 2000. Now it is back to being closer to 14.5% of GDP.
Remember the Tom DeLay quote:
My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet...after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good...I am ready to declare ongoing victory (over spending).
This comment (alongside my previously quoted budget numbers) speaks for itself.
This is why I support organizations like the Club for Growth. The Club for Growth has been fighting hard to elect congressmen and senators who are rock solid on the core economic issues that are supposed to unite conservatives: cutting taxes and spending, reducing regulations, free trade, and generally reducing the size and power of the federal government.
I'm happy to support Democrats *if* Democrats make a serious commitment to those things. But I keep waiting and hoping and waiting and... nope... I'm still not seeing it. (In my particular district, I am represented in the CA assembly, CA senate, and US House by far-left-wing Democrats, who make my choice particularly easy.)
For example: the new Democrats in Congress are probably poised to start off by passing a bill to raise the minimum wage. That may be popular in the country as a whole, but it sure isn't going to help them win my vote.
Yes, some conservatives have figured that by kicking out the Republicans, the Republicans might be forced to "clean house" and could then come back stronger. I hope they're right -- but it's an *extremely* risky strategy to say that you're going to win elections by first losing elections. And the House under Boehner actually *did* seem to be finally cleaning up its act a bit, e.g., voting and in fact passing an earmark reform rule.
Conservatives who sat out this election may be regretting their choice big-time if Republicans don't come back strong in '08.
Anyway, why should a *great* GOP congressman like Chris Chocola or a great candidate like Rick O'Donnell suffer for the sins of terrible GOP congressmen like Bob Ney or Tom DeLay (who were quitting Congress anyway, win or lose)? Why should a great candidate like Mike Bouchard in the Michigan Senate race, or Steele or Santorum, suffer for the sins of terrible GOP senators like Conrad Burns or Linc Chafee?
The kind that would have liked a Senate majority, but that's just me.
Given the choice between the 49-51 Senate without him and the 50-50 Senate with him, I'd probably go for the 49-51, simply out of the fear that he'd switch parties (which was the perennial rumor).
I didn't support the Laffey primary challenge, simply on the grounds that it seemed both futile and wasteful, but, seriously... good riddance. Chafee was not only a lightweight compared to his father, and a unreliable voter on all sorts of key issues in the Senate, but also quite the publicity hound, in the worst sort of petty way.
This is the same guy who went out of his way to say that he didn't vote for Bush in 2004, but wrote in Bush 41 instead. What purpose did that serve except to trash his own Republican Party?
Why did he make such a fool of himself opposing the Alito nomination?
Elected Republican officials need to obey Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." (Well, unless he's been indicted or something.)
I'd assumed - wrongly - that the Republican side was united behind MCRI. Mea culpa.
As for the RINO/DINO thing, this has been the source of much angry infighting on dailykos, and I'll assume on right-wing sites, as well. There has to be some kind of balance struck between ideology and practicality, and people disagree widely as to where that balance should lie. The Chafee thing is a good example: I don't disagree with any of the points you raise, but you now lose all your committee chairs in the Senate. Is that really worth it?
If you want a preview for 2008, watch how the Democrats deal with Landrieu. She's decently popular in Louisiana because she comes from a capital-F Family in a state that votes heavily for Family, but she's taken a lot of criticism both for Katrina (from the Right) and for her voting record (from the Left). If the next Senatorial elections look to be close, will progressive Democrats bite their tongues and support her? Is it worth the majority to get someone who votes with us so little of the time?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
What did "big government conservatism" or "compassionate conservatism" mean in practice? Let's take the Medicare prescription drug benefit as an example.
Bush co-opted the issue from Democrats and said "I, too, can give you a prescription drug benefit! But mine will be cheaper and therefore more 'fiscally responsible.'" And originally, when you compared Bush's plan vs. Gore's plan on the campaign trail, that was probably true. Bush's plan had a smaller carrot (the size of the benefit) and a larger stick (you had to swallow some reforms to get the benefit).
But once you've promised a bill, you have to deliver... after all, Bush *PROMISED* a drug benefit in the campaign! Could he let Democrats attack him in '04 and tell seniors "Bush lied to us about the drug benefit?"
Of course, when push came to shove, the carrot grew and the stick shrank. The final bill had almost no "stick" at all.
By promising a drug benefit, Bush conceded the issue to Democrats. Rather than having a debate about whether existing Medicare promises were affordable (and they weren't, even before the bill was passed) and how much they needed to be cut to make them affordable, we were having a debate about how big of a benefit to *add* to Medicare.
Conservatives can always claim that their version was "more responsible" or "more affordable" or whatever. And this may well be true. But if they do this, they have already conceded Democrats' premise that Medicare needs to be expanded.
In my book, expanding Medicare is a "liberal" policy. The opposite of that liberal policy is not expanding Medicare by less... it's *cutting* Medicare, or at the very least reforming it in a cost-neutral way.
Best case, "big government conservatism" is "liberalism lite." It's a phony version of liberalism that fools no one and satisfies no one.
Now, there may be some other differences between the two, like when we talk about "faith-based initiatives." But again, the mere concept "faith-based initiatives" concedes the liberal premise. The liberal premise is that we need to have welfare programs run by the federal government. The conservative premise ought to be that the federal government should *not* run welfare programs... period... and that welfare should be left to the states and the counties.
Instead, "compassionate conservatives" conceded the liberal premise that we need to have federal welfare programs, and said: "The real problem with those welfare programs is that they don't use the teachings of Jesus Christ. If only we could bring the word of God to the poor, we could do a better job of helping them!" Now, all of the sudden, rather than fighting to devolve welfare to the states, we're fighting about how to run (and possibly expand) the federal programs... again, the liberal premise has been conceded.
Mind you, many conservatives -- even many social conservatives! -- considered "faith-based initiatives" to be a ridiculous idea from day one. But it *was* part of Bush's campaign...
Arguably, I oversimplified in saying '"compassionate conservatism" = "liberalism"'. It isn't quite that simple. But the effect is the same: both favor expansion of government. Both are opposites to small government conservatism.
Unlike Reagan, Bush is not and has never been a small government conservative. Can anyone even *imagine* Bush saying "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem?" Or "It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people?"
We need that Reagan spirit exemplified by those two quotes back in the Republican Party. Even if it doesn't win elections right away... at least the party will have a *purpose* again, rather than just "power for power's sake" or "we can out-liberal the liberals at their own game" -- both of which directly lead to the disaster of '06.
It's hard to imagine a task more painful and thankless than corralling a 50-50 Senate into doing... well... anything.
By having a 51-50 nominal majority, you get blamed for everything that goes wrong and everything that does or doesn't get done, while having almost no power to actually do anything.
You need 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate except for a budget reconciliation bill. And since budget reconciliation has that 10-year cutoff, then you get stuck with things like these silly 2010 tax cut expirations.
You may get stuck with evenly divided committees, as happened in the 2001 Senate (equal number of Republicans and Democrats on each committee).
To win even your 51 votes, you can't afford a single defection from your party, so you need strict party discipline. And yet that strict party discipline doesn't sit well with folks like Jeffords or Chafee, who can easily be tempted to jump ship.
You also need every senator (plus the VP) to be present at basically every single vote. You can't say "we're going to win anyway, so we can afford to do a vote with Sen. X out of town."
Once it came down to Virginia and Montana, I was actually rooting for Republicans to lose them both. Burns was a mediocre senator, while Allen was a reasonable senator but had run a terrible campaign that was hurting Republicans everywhere. Both deserved to lose anyway, and it leaves Democrats with that tiny 51-seat majority that may come back to haunt them.
Now Republicans get to learn how to do those "filibuster" things again...
The only one I might object to is KY-03 -- I would put that one in the "Power of Incumbency" category as hard to win back (it's a Kerry district).
He's also missing the GA-08 and GA-12 seats, which are *very* vulnerable to going red in '08. GA-12 had less than a 1000-vote spread. There's also IL-08, a very conservative district that could perhaps flip on a rematch, although it's a bit more of a stretch. And surely there will be other new races that will come up as retirements happen.
It will be hard for Republicans to get back to 230 any time soon, but they should be able to cut the Democratic majority pretty substantially with even an "OK" year.
To get back a majority, Republicans are going to need to figure out how to win back the suburbs and the West, not just the rural areas and the South. They also cannot afford to completely write off the Northeast.
If he does that, then and only then will Democrats have a decision to make. My guess is that they would fund the additional troops, but only with a timeline attached.
Bush doesn't need to get new funding to send those troops. He can just send them now, within the current appropriation, and ask for more funding later when he runs out of funds a lot earlier (actually even that running out of funds would only be virtual and they will keep being funded - it's not like have a limited amount of cash that they watch running out). That would make the decision tougher for dems because the troops would already be there.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
There are political considerations. The presidential election and new congressional elections are only two years away. If Bush sends 50,000 more troops, the situation on the ground will have to show marked improvement or he will be sinking Republican hopes.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Conservatives talk about wanting "small government", but I'm never sure what this is supposed to mean in practice.
The federal government has three basic functions:
1. It controls the behavior of people and institutions
2. It provides services needed to be managed on a federal level
3. It provides social services to individuals
Let's take these in order:
1. This is the law-making, policing and enforcement area. The basic difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is that liberals think regulation of personal behavior should be kept to a minimum (abortion, marriage, religious practices, etc) while conservatives think regulation of business behavior should be kept to a minimum (health and safety regulations, worker rights, mergers, etc). Each group has no trouble with seeing government get "bigger" to enforce their preferred behavior on others. So Sarbanes-Oxley is seen by conservatives as making government bigger, but passing national gay marriage laws isn't.
2. This is the area of raising armies, national spy agencies and civil engineering projects that are beyond the means of local governments. While there are some excesses (the bridge to "nowhere"), most people favor such project. This is how the interstate highway system got built as well as promotion of civil aviation, ports, etc.
3. Most federal personal services (Medicare, Social Security, etc) are funded by dedicated tax streams. They are not government programs, they are government administered programs. The government is acting as a collection and disbursing agent. Until Vietnam these were not part of the overall federal budget and were added in to dilute the percentage of federal spending going to the war. There is no real support to cut these programs back, in fact history has shown that expansions of existing programs are quickly regarded as essential.
So, what does smaller government mean. A smaller military or fewer civil engineering projects? Or perhaps just removing business restrictions and lowering taxes? Or maybe we should eliminate Social Security?
We live in an era of increasing concentration. Firms get bigger and more international. Organizations are becoming trans-national (UN, WTO, World Court, etc). So it is unrealistic to think that governments would get smaller - they need to grow in response to the size of the organizations they need to deal with.
As far as I can see "smaller government" is a code word for eliminating social services to the poor and cutting taxes to the rich. If I'm wrong then exactly which parts of government are too big?
PS. It isn't going to happen. Hoping for a new "conservative" party which will actually implement libertarian ideals is never going to happen. The Republicans were put in power and failed to deliver. This is because they talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. The "real" Republican party is, and has been for all of the 20th Century, the party of plutocracy. That they manage to trick so many people of average means into supporting their self-serving agenda is one of the marvels of the age.
Name one thing the Republicans did during the 20th Century that has had a lasting effect on how society is currently being run. Get over your Utopian dreams and start to work on ideas on how to regulate the huge power blocks that run the world.
Democrats are a party where they believe we should have commonsense policies that work for the common good. Solve problems not offer solution then find out the problem afterwards--like Iraq War, then cook WMD evidence. Sometimes the solution is govt sometimes it is private industry sometimes a hybrid. Sometimes the solution involves conservatism sometimes it requires liberalism for whatever that means.
Netroots aggressively supported who you called conservative Democrats--why? because they believe in their integrity and commonsense not whether they are pro choice or pro life. Remember netoots are 40's professional, educated, not idealists or romantics. They just wanted commonsense and pragmatic govt to return. They are for 50 state strategy and invite more rural people to the Dem Party. They want a people powered politics and govt not special interest or one crony industry oriented.
Even the whole world is cheering and stockmarket is hailing--Democratic Party victory.
Democrats were against No Child Left Behind. They were against Medicare Prescription plan because it was designed just to benefit Pharmaceutical Industry and Insurance Industry. Democrats are also against torture and eavesdropping without FISA oversight, which conservatives should also be against.
Robert Gates made Osama Bin Laden what he is today. This is not exaggeration. By funding Osama Bin Laden's operations, training camps, weaponry and political influence from 1979 (even before Russia invaded Afghanistan), Robert Gates personally gave us our principal enemy in the "War on Terror".
More frighteningly, all of Robert Gates' support to Osama Bin Laden ran through Pakistan's ISI. ISI has been linked to training and funding the 9/11 bombers, the London bombers, the Madrid bombers, the Bali bombers and the Delhi bombers but is strangely immune from official Washington scrutiny.
I really wonder which side Robert Gates thinks he's on. With a 30 year history of pomoting and financing state and non-state terrorism, I doubt it is the side of the peace and prosperity of the American people and bringing our troops home safe.
It is ironic indeed that a man who engineered the quagmire in Afghanistan which bankrupted and demoralised the Soviet Union, precipitating its collapse, should be brought in to direct our own quagmire which is bankrupting the United States Treasury and precipitating the collapse of American hegemony in the world.
.........
The CIA was instrumental in setting up the network of madrassas in Pakistan which train the bulk of Islamic terrorists worldwide and in promoting the regional spread of fundamentalist Islamic jihad.
"[I]t was the government of the United States who supported Pakistani dictator General Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious schools from which the germs of Taliban emerged." (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), RAWA Statement on the Terrorist Attacks In the US, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), http://globalresearc... . , 16 September 2001)
Privatize govt. Instead of employing people to do a function, hire a private company with no bid contract and pay them with tax payer money which they can waste.
Example--instead of army hiring their own cooks and services in Iraq--Halliburton will do it charging big profits and waste--without oversight.
Instead of hiring more soldiers--they hire mercenaries or private army and paid many times than the average soldier pay.
Instead of govt managing public schools, they channel tax payer money to private charter schools who will be exempt from NCLB and later on would charge increasing tuition fees when defunded public schools dont work anymore.
Instead of efficiently run medicare channel tax payer money to health insurance companies which will increase premiums everytime you use it and and if you are too sick will not even insure you. And when you need to use it provide lots of bureaucratic hassles to get a needed MRI or surgery.
But funding it--you just told us that the main problem right now, even justifying as to disavow constitution --ie torture and eavesdropping --is islamic extremism.
But their growthto the point now we need to have long lines in airport and cut our civil liberties is because we funded them. Extremism + money is very very dangerous.
One the one hand, we heavily funded Islamic extremists like Gulbiddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan warlord with very close ties to Pakistan's ISI and Bin Laden.
On the other hand, we also funded Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Lion of Panjshir. Massoud was an ethnic Tajik and a brilliant and charismatic guerrilla leader who held off six major Soviet armored assaults on the Panjshir Valley.
While the assessment that funding jihadists then = Islamic terrorism now may be a stretch, the underlying truth is that meddling in the affairs of other countries, no matter how solid the justification, has unintended consequences that may or may not turn out to be a bigger problem than the original problem the meddling was trying to solve.
While saying there is a direct coorelation is false, it is also false to say that our actions had zero effect on the subsequent developments.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Afghanistan-Soviet era was more secular--women working and studying and in govt.
Madrassas manufactured militant jihadist extremists in thousands and millions which spread throughout muslim countries even in Africa, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.
I think there is a closer correlation than what you think. Because the muslim world became more conservative or at least threatened by their extremist factions.
and attending a school are two different things. No one is forcing them to attend; they are choosing to do so. It meshes well with their traditions and the Islamic desire to memorize the Koran and the related religious texts. That they also choose to emphasize the extreme parts of their religion is their choice.
What you're saying is that building a road makes people drive Hummers. I'm saying that people choose what to do with that road. We could use it for bicycles. Or Hummers. Our choice.
I'm not denying any affect; we certainly have meddled in international affairs. But we have not robbed them of free will. They can use any excuse they want to justify their actions, but that does not absolve them of responsibility for their choice of action. We should understand our role, but we should not assume that we are the sole force and cause of all subsequent events.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I'm just saying we followed a policy in the past that directly resulted in the attacks on 9/11 and that is hardly irrelevant to the discussion. Just because your guys made a bad call in the past doesn't mean we just write it off. Perhaps if we learned from our mistakes we might not make them next time around? Just think how much treasure and blood we could have saved if the neo-cons who pushed Iraq had actually studied our experience in Vietnam (or France's or China's or Japan's, etc. etc.).
And I'm not being anti-Republican. There are plenty of mistakes from Democratic administrations in the past we shouldn't overlook either it's just that we're dealing with the Bush administration at the moment which makes Gates previous decisions very pertinent.
Karl Rove would be pissing in his pants if Democrats came out and cut funding for our boys over there. We couldn't hand him a better baseball bat to beat us with.
No, make no mistake about it, this Iraqi fiasco is dubya's war. We face real obsticals with our Middle East dealings. We'll leave, but we won't leave right away, nor will we leave without everyone, Iraqi's, Repubs & Dems all on the same page.
While I support pulling out of Iraq, I think & would support that we need to beef up both the military and the reconstruction funding in Afganistan. We can still make a difference there. Osama is in Pakistan anyhow. We should be closer just so that we can eventually bring him to justice - (that's a nice way of saying string the bastard up).
Our funding and support of Massoud was criminally negligent compared to what went to the extremists thanks to Pakistan. That was a mistake in policy that directly relates to our situation today. We should actually examine why and how that happened in order to try to improve our situation today - not ignore the whole history and hope we don't make the same mistakes!
But according to Ender this irrelevant to our current policy so why are we discussing it? Or anything for that matter? :)
George Bush43 is not conservative in that he wants a big government.
But that's not what he ran on in 2000 nor in 2004. Both times he was pledging to shrink the federal government.
What do you call it when someone says they are going to do one thing and then turns around and does the exact opposite? What do you call it when you call someone on doing the exact opposite and they come out and say you are the one who's lying and then question your patriotism, loyalty to the US, etc. Many of us call that hypocracy. I haven't seen it described that way on the right leaning sites read. What about you?
there are consequences for our actions. Our involvement (right or wrong, I think worthwhile) focused their attention on us and made us a convenient target once the Russians were gone. And God knows, they need a target.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I would agree with "I'm just saying we followed a policy in the past that directly resulted in the attacks on 9/11 and that is hardly irrelevant to the discussion."???
There is no direct relation between the two and no one (even on the democratic side) suggested it. Just because you think that is the case, it does not become realistic.
Our support for mujahadeen fighting in Afghanistan did not make them hate us overnight. There are many many factors for some of them eventually turning on us and blaming our policies is extremely blind.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Then it is not voluntary. If there is a group with money in a town giving free schools and hope to a poor area--then there is no competition and no other alternative.
the problem was we helped them & then dropped them all when the Soviets finally left.
It was our obligation to help them build a new Afganistan then & we blew it. I'm not pointing fingers as to who did it, I'm saying we all lost out cause we didn't do it right.
Had we had some hand in rebuilding Afgainstan then, maybe the Taliban wouldn't have taken over or maybe the Taliban wouldn't have been so dismissive of the west had we helped them.
...you're right - there have been conflicts between fundamentalist Muslims and Western powers for the past 500 years. Our policies are not the only factor but if not for those policies we wouldn't be facing such a well-armed, global enemy with a chip on their shoulder aimed at us! And to keep feeding that enemy (or the newest generation of it) while ignoring our past policies is not just ignorant but counter-productive.
How can you say there is no direct link between the two? How do you define direct? Try reading some of the relevant literature - "Charlie Wilson's War" and "Ghost Wars" and see how indirect the connection is!
that the dems don't have as much control over Iraq as LZ claims. Bush has many ways to coerce Congress into funding, and he is still commander in chief last I checked. LZ is already trying the bait and switch tactic of blame the dems for the Iraq war already. At least Ender, probably not intentionally, is not falling for it yet.
For a majority of those for outlawing abortion, the only consistent reasoning is that they are disempowering women (otherwise they'd be all for imprisoning the mother as well)
The anti-gay amendment, flag burning amendment etc. just to name a few.
The fiscal conservatives (distinct from corporate conservatives) were squeezed out in favor of the social reactionaries who could deliver votes.
but it is a red herring since I was not talking about any of the things you bring up other than maybe Abramoff. Corruption hurt the GOP more than anything else, and this corruption is due to a consolidation of power for too long.
All the other stuff you wrote might be why you are mad, but it is not what I was discussing, nor why the Republicans lost.
before you throw around a big word like factless, Ender.
American policy has been tied to the growth and virulence of the Islamic fundamentalist movement since the 60s. And you can stuff that bunk about praying toward Mecca in the same tight little place your conservative forebears could stuff their rice paddy rhetoric from the same period.
You rail constantly about Islamic fundamentalism but you somehow don't hold the administration repsonsible for taking us off on a distraction in Iraq when the majority of the funding for jihadists, and 15 of 19 terrorists who struck us on 9-11, come from Saudi Arabia and the maddrasses that crank out jihadists and which are supported by Saudi elites.
Why not go to the source? Why aren't you advocating for us to move on Saudi Arabia? You're forever advocating violence against these radicals. Well, we know where they are. They're in Saudi Arabia.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Saudi Arabia is a problem because technically it is:
1. relatively friendly (to US) government
2. would create huge instability in oil prices and supply if we decided to make it our battleground
3. Saudi Arabia never provoked us
4. they share intelligence on the various terrorists operating inside and outside its borders
I'd love to take Saudi Arabia on but it's just not realistic or feasible and would create more problems. Also most of the actual terrorists are outside of Saudi Arabia regardless of who is funding them.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
We arm a bunch of fanatics in the middle east to drive off the soviets and as a result there are a bunch of trained armed fanatics in strategic parts of the middle east.
Like a lot of our problems (Noriega, Hussein, Ho Chi Minh, etc) we had a hand in creating our enemy because we were convinced of our genius and ability to meddle without it blowing up in our face depiste the fact that every time we meddle it blows up in our face.
If Reagan had not be elected president there would be no Al qaeda. That's the gipper's legacy to the world- supporting terrorism in latin america and the middle east.
We could do all sorts of thing with the Saudis beyond invading or bombing them.
But the very fact that they are holding hands iwth Bush with one hand while they are funding al Qaeda with the other is criminal. Bush, his old man and the rest of crew (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) have covered for these scumbags for years.
15 of the 19 attackers.
And we invade Iraq.
WTF...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
"Allen blows a seat that he had absolutely no business losing. His campaign was a complete disaster across the board."
In other words, he didn't do a good enough job of covering up the fact that he's a racist.
There's a reason America's first electoral shut-out happened now: we have more information. When the MSM ran the show, the conservative filters inherit in corporate journalism prohibited things like "maccaca" come to light. Once information-distribution is in the hands of voters, we can discover all sorts of intersting things about a candidate that we never could before.
So my advice to Republicans is this: don't worry about your campaigning skills, they're top-notch. It's your sense of character that is flawed. Given that most of the GOP believes the hoax that Bush is a Christian, though, I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel coming any time soon unless you purge your party of any and all racists, xenophobes, and such.
Unfortunately, such a purging will only bring a moral light to the end of the tunnel; without that electoral group, the GOP is dead in the water.
Thanks for a sweet message. We all know that republicans are all racist, sexist, and homophobic so you are not exactly illuminating anything new. And if all of us are that, then we don't have any problems voting for people that publically exhibit those traits. Of course our candidates will now have to do a better job of masking em in order to woo those pure, non-judgemental, and non-bigoted independent and moderate dem voters.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I am not sure, but I believe the point of the comment was that if you want to claim the mantle of moral superiority, you are also subject, therefore, to a more harsh and strict judgement in regards to your actions.
The Republican Party, while kissing up to its religious right base, wears that moral mantle at its peril.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
without being all that moral or religious myself. So what. You don't have to be all that to support the agenda of someone else.
If I were to run for congress I'd pledge to vote pro-life and pro-family (if I was in that kind of district) and tell people to judge me based on my votes and not on my own personal life. It would be a contract with the voters. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The nice thing about a democracy is that we all get to vote. The disturbing thing about democracy is that we all get to vote.
And as an independent, I object to the pure label. Pure's nowhere near as much fun, ya know ;}
Our newest Mayan god is welcome, of course, but perhaps mistakes this site for some other? Our current Mayan god is much more civil and enjoyable to converse with.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Comments :
I agree with the sentiment.
Is it the majority party's job to direct war strategy and foreign policy?
I mean, I agree with the sentiment -- but the idea that, 'Now that you've won you have to fix it' is a bit disingenuous. The President still has to lead on this, God help him. It's his job. I hope Baker and Gates will be able to help craft a new strategy that is sensible, and has a chance to work.
I am glad that Republicans seem to be committed to 'getting back to their roots' -- I hope they manage to do it. But you'd do well to bear in mind that just as it's hard to have a 'Camelot' without Kennedy, or someone like him -- it's also going to be hard to bring back 'Morning in America' without Reagan, or someone like him.
Both parties spend too much time triangulating, and not enough time doing what's best for the country.
Both parties need better leaders.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
The truth is...
Democrats wield little clout on Iraq. This is Bush's war. But Rumsfeld's resignation and replacement with Gates rings the death knell for the neocons.
I am guessing that the old hands will once again bail out George W. Bush. Gates is a confidante of Brent Scowcroft and, of course, Jim Baker.
All I can say is that it is comforting to have the grown-ups in charge of foreign policy again instead of the fringe neocon crowd of Richard Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the gang.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Conservatives?
I think the problem is that hte voters can't even find conservatism. The Republicans lost track of what it was to be conservative and instead became Reactionary. They were not longer about moving slowly and cautiously but about moving back and fighting battles that have long since been decided.
It'd be like Speaker Pelosi raising gun control as a major cause.
Libertarains... The Right's Green Party.
Power of the purse
Democrats now hold the "power of the purse" -- they have leverage through the appropriations process.
Suppose Bush decides to push for more troops. This would require extra funding, so it can't happen without Democratic votes in the House and Senate.
Likewise, Democrats could pass a budget that has *no* funding for troops. Then Bush would be forced to withdraw troops.
Nice bit of cheerleading you have here
I question your statement that the voters did not reject 'conservatism'. What definition of conservatism are we discussing here: neo-conservatism, paleo-conservatism, classical liberalism? Voters definitely rejected the former. One thing I think your post lacks is the notion that you think you can prevent one of the fundamental rules of politics: power corrupts.
It would be wonderful if we could embrace an ideology that would remain static and permanent no matter how much power the party consolidates. A pattern in history indicates that this static tendency does not last. When consolidation of power occurs, voters properly react. The political pendulum swings in one direction as a sign that the opposing party has become bloated and lost touch with its foundations. Voters then send the pendulum in the opposite direction to compensate. The problem with Republicans is not that they lost sight of conservatism, it is that they had too much power. This election made this pronouncement loudly: corruption and incompetence will not be tolerated, especially when it appears that your party favors corporations, kickbacks, and cronyism over traditional conservative ideals.
You do need to return to your roots, but that is only possible by stripping the power of the party away. You should see this election as a blessing and a chance to recover some semblance of your definition of 'conservative' before it got crushed under the monolith of neo-conservatism.
Do you really believe that Democrats would cut off funding?
C'mon.
McCain was arguing for 50,000 more troops today, but I don't think it's the Democrats Bush would have to worry about should he make such a recommendation.
He would need to convince the American public and he would need heavy-duty sign-on from military brass, active and past, to sell it.
If he does that, then and only then will Democrats have a decision to make. My guess is that they would fund the additional troops, but only with a timeline attached.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
If they use the power of the purse.....
.... they can really only use that in protest. That does not change the strategy directly. The President still has to be willing to listen.
They could attempt to bargain by threatening to cut funding in order to force the President's hand, and make him adopt proposed changes in strategy. But that's not a 'best case' solution -- that's a 'worst case' solution.
The best thing that could happen would be for all the smart people in both parties to work together to fix our Iraq strategy, if it can be fixed.
That's what I hope happens.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Which issue would that be?
Isn't this backwards?
The Republican majority of '95-'96 is the only one that could be plausibly described as "reactionary." There was real, serious talk of eliminating several entire federal departments, eliminating farm subsidies, and dismantling the federal Medicaid program. If Newt Gingrich had his way, nontrivial parts of the New Deal and Great Society would have been repealed.
Now, some of those proposals never had a chance of even getting through the House, much less the Senate or past a Clinton veto, but the Republicans became *less* conservative over the years, not *more* conservative. They went from talk of *getting rid* of the Department of Education to endorsing a massive expansion of its role.
Expanding the Department of Education isn't reactionary, it isn't conservative... it's liberal.
"Big government conservative" = "liberal"
"Compassionate conservative" = "liberal"
And when Republicans govern like liberals... what's the point?
'06 proves that the Republicans cannot win as the "Diet Coke" or the "Bud Light" party of "a little less expansion of government than the other guys."
Bush and Cheney were unchecked...
The result? The logical end to Grover Norquist's "drown the federal government in the bathtub" dream -- Cheney and company looted the government in the process of breaking the government.
"Two birds with one stone" and all that.
These guys were never about beinig conservative in the traditional sense. They were about the money. They were/are bank robbers who are in the process of carrying out the biggest heist in history. Hundreds of billions of dollars funneled into the pockets of their pals through the war, phony "fath-based" programs and giveraways to industries like Medicare D to the pharma giants.
That's why they like the "incompetence" tag. Because then they can turn around and say, "See? Government is not a agood way to solve these problems! Look at Katrina!"
They got us coming and going.
But they were never classic conservatives. Thay had no interest in actually governing. Just $$$$$$$$$$$$.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
What is the cause of political corruption?
Yes, it's true that power corrupts. That's why the Constitution provides for a limited government with enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights, rather than an unlimited government that can do whatever it wants.
The best way to fight political corruption is certainly not to pass some sort of "anti-lobbyist" bill or something. (If a Congressman with a six-figure salary and a generous federal pension gets corrupted by a $25 meal with a lobbyist, that's pretty sad.) Sometimes "kick the bums out" works. But really, if you want to attack political corruption, you have to attack the nearly $3T federal budget.
If a lobbyist can spend $100,000 to earn a federal appropriation of $10M, that's a very good deal for the lobbyist. When the federal government spends nearly $3 trillion every year, the potential for abuse is huge.
We need to put the federal government on a diet. That's what the "spirit of '94" and the "Reagan Revolution" were all about -- reducing the size and power of the federal government.
Small government conservatism. The central principle of small government conservatism is precisely what I just said: "the size and power of the federal government needs to be reduced."
The classic Republican coalition in modern times is really a collection of three groups:
- Southern social conservatives
- Western libertarians
- Northeastern fiscally conservative moderates
The reason the Republican coalition used to work is that the three groups' interests aligned. The NE moderates wanted the budget balanced and therefore supported budget cuts. The libertarians supported both budget and tax cuts. And the social conservatives viewed the federal government as having a destructive influence on the "traditional family" and traditional religious values.
This alliance between libertarians and social conservatives is the classic "fusionism" theory of conservatism that dates back to Barry Goldwater.
Goldwater and Reagan were from the Western/libertarian wing of the party; Bush 43 is from the Southern/social conservative wing of the party; Bush 41 and Gerald Ford were from the NE moderate wing.
In the House: Pence and Shadegg, and to a lesser extent Boehner, are from the Western/libertarian wing. DeLay and Blunt were from the Southern/social conservative wing. In previous days, Armey represented the libertarian wing, while Gingrich was somewhere in between.
In the Senate: Mitch McConnell is the libertarian wing, Frist and Lott were the social conservative wing.
(Note that you don't have to be from the actual region to belong to a particular wing.)
Corruption
But I do not think the corruption (of this recent administration anyway) stems from social programs or anything you would find fault with in the budget, but from misuse of 'legitimate' purposes of the government, such as the utilization of the military for war-profiteering and cronyism.
Bush and his loyalists cleverly instigated his corrupt schemes by abusing what conservatives hold sacred: they gave tax cuts to the wealthy to appease the libertarians (and to a lesser extent the fiscal conservatives) though it did not directly benefit many save the upper-echelons; they created more bureaucracy by promoting faith-based programs to satisfy his social conservatives (all the while playing up the threat of the Muslim and the homosexual) while laughing behind the back of the religious and partaking in extreme coital hypocrisy; and (as I stated previously) they used sanctioned expenditures that fiscal conservatives would not gripe about for conniving purposes such as no-bid contracts and war profiteering.
This is corruption done Republican style. Throw in a few Abramoffs ($25 dinners, ha) and Delays, and we have ourselves a party without a soul.
All the while, you guys ate it up. I'm not saying that conservatives should look forward to democratic leadership, but we did take a huge monkey off your back.
My bed beckons
I'll reply to your upcoming response in the morning. Talk to you later.
Poking a few holes:
Although very few, this time around. I agree with (or can't find anything to disagree with) many of your points. But:
If the rag-tag group of unemployed potheads, townie regulars, and retirees I was surrounded by tonight constitutes the nation's "elite", then this is news to me. Sure, in favor of affirmative action, you have people like college professors, but you also have the economically slumped area of Detroit. In the pro-Prop.2 side, you have a wealthy Californian behind it, and it received much of its political support from even more wealthy businessmen like DeVos; you also have the economically slumped not-Detroit who voted for it. I'm clearly missing the "elite" part of your equation.
The kind that would have liked a Senate majority, but that's just me.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Some nonsense here:
Er... only if your sole criterion for "liberal" is "expand the government". Otherwise, these ideologies are on more or less opposite sides of the aisle.
Examples: a federal amendment to ban gay marriage qualifies as expanding the government's powers to dictate what used to be considered state policy. If your only criterion for "liberal" is expansion of government, then a federal gay marriage ban is liberal. Increased federal funding towards our immigration problem, with a massive dump of money into a wall along Mexico? Liberal, as well.
I think you're conflating things that really don't go together well. Government expansion is a tool, not an ideology - and it can be put in the service of multiple, competing ideologies.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Examples
Errr... the conservatives I've been reading the last 6 years have been screaming bloody murder over all of the following:
1. Earmarks
2. Medicare prescription drug benefit
3. Steel tariffs
4. 2002 farm bill
5. No Child Left Behind
6. McCain-Feingold
7. 527 group "reform"
Those are the top ones that immediately come to mind. Each one of these items has seriously pissed off conservatives of many different stripes.
The *only* argument that was *ever* offered to conservatives in favor of many of these policies is that they were somehow needed in order to guarantee electoral victory to preserve the majority. Those arguments (which were never very convincing to us in the first place) have now been proven to be complete garbage. These policies did *not* guarantee electoral victory. For example, passing the Medicare drug plan won the GOP plaudits among AARP... for about a month or two, until AARP went back to fighting Republicans on Social Security reform.
Abramoff was directly connected to the earmark issue (indeed, Abramoff could be said to have *specialized* in the earmarks for dollars business). In general the excessive coziness between Republicans and K street lobbyists also contributed to items (2), (3), and (4), at minimum, and probably also item (7). Conservatives were pissed over Abramoff, too. We don't want government to take sides *in favor of* business -- we just want to get government off business's back. Government is supposed to be an impartial arbiter, not a picker of sides.
One of the reason Pence is such a great candidate for minority leader is that he had no part in so much of this garbage -- one of the few Republicans to vote *against* the prescription drug plan, for example.
Rest assured, conservatives have not been happy with the results of the last 6 years. There have been victories here and there that conservatives *are* proud of, like Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court, CAFTA, and the tax cuts, but not much else. Most of the real conservative accomplishments were enacted in '95-'98.
From 1995 through 2000, Republicans really did shrink the federal government. Non-defense, non-interest-on-the-debt spending by the federal government fell from 13.65% of GDP in 1995 to 12.88% of GDP in 2000. Now it is back to being closer to 14.5% of GDP.
Remember the Tom DeLay quote:
This comment (alongside my previously quoted budget numbers) speaks for itself.
This is why I support organizations like the Club for Growth. The Club for Growth has been fighting hard to elect congressmen and senators who are rock solid on the core economic issues that are supposed to unite conservatives: cutting taxes and spending, reducing regulations, free trade, and generally reducing the size and power of the federal government.
I'm happy to support Democrats *if* Democrats make a serious commitment to those things. But I keep waiting and hoping and waiting and... nope... I'm still not seeing it. (In my particular district, I am represented in the CA assembly, CA senate, and US House by far-left-wing Democrats, who make my choice particularly easy.)
For example: the new Democrats in Congress are probably poised to start off by passing a bill to raise the minimum wage. That may be popular in the country as a whole, but it sure isn't going to help them win my vote.
Yes, some conservatives have figured that by kicking out the Republicans, the Republicans might be forced to "clean house" and could then come back stronger. I hope they're right -- but it's an *extremely* risky strategy to say that you're going to win elections by first losing elections. And the House under Boehner actually *did* seem to be finally cleaning up its act a bit, e.g., voting and in fact passing an earmark reform rule.
Conservatives who sat out this election may be regretting their choice big-time if Republicans don't come back strong in '08.
Anyway, why should a *great* GOP congressman like Chris Chocola or a great candidate like Rick O'Donnell suffer for the sins of terrible GOP congressmen like Bob Ney or Tom DeLay (who were quitting Congress anyway, win or lose)? Why should a great candidate like Mike Bouchard in the Michigan Senate race, or Steele or Santorum, suffer for the sins of terrible GOP senators like Conrad Burns or Linc Chafee?
MCRI
Didn't leading Republicans, including DeVos, *oppose* MCRI? http://article.natio...
Wasn't it outspent 2:1?
Given the choice between the 49-51 Senate without him and the 50-50 Senate with him, I'd probably go for the 49-51, simply out of the fear that he'd switch parties (which was the perennial rumor).
I didn't support the Laffey primary challenge, simply on the grounds that it seemed both futile and wasteful, but, seriously... good riddance. Chafee was not only a lightweight compared to his father, and a unreliable voter on all sorts of key issues in the Senate, but also quite the publicity hound, in the worst sort of petty way.
This is the same guy who went out of his way to say that he didn't vote for Bush in 2004, but wrote in Bush 41 instead. What purpose did that serve except to trash his own Republican Party?
Why did he make such a fool of himself opposing the Alito nomination?
Elected Republican officials need to obey Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." (Well, unless he's been indicted or something.)
Fair enough points;
I'd assumed - wrongly - that the Republican side was united behind MCRI. Mea culpa.
As for the RINO/DINO thing, this has been the source of much angry infighting on dailykos, and I'll assume on right-wing sites, as well. There has to be some kind of balance struck between ideology and practicality, and people disagree widely as to where that balance should lie. The Chafee thing is a good example: I don't disagree with any of the points you raise, but you now lose all your committee chairs in the Senate. Is that really worth it?
If you want a preview for 2008, watch how the Democrats deal with Landrieu. She's decently popular in Louisiana because she comes from a capital-F Family in a state that votes heavily for Family, but she's taken a lot of criticism both for Katrina (from the Right) and for her voting record (from the Left). If the next Senatorial elections look to be close, will progressive Democrats bite their tongues and support her? Is it worth the majority to get someone who votes with us so little of the time?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Terminology
What did "big government conservatism" or "compassionate conservatism" mean in practice? Let's take the Medicare prescription drug benefit as an example.
Bush co-opted the issue from Democrats and said "I, too, can give you a prescription drug benefit! But mine will be cheaper and therefore more 'fiscally responsible.'" And originally, when you compared Bush's plan vs. Gore's plan on the campaign trail, that was probably true. Bush's plan had a smaller carrot (the size of the benefit) and a larger stick (you had to swallow some reforms to get the benefit).
But once you've promised a bill, you have to deliver... after all, Bush *PROMISED* a drug benefit in the campaign! Could he let Democrats attack him in '04 and tell seniors "Bush lied to us about the drug benefit?"
Of course, when push came to shove, the carrot grew and the stick shrank. The final bill had almost no "stick" at all.
By promising a drug benefit, Bush conceded the issue to Democrats. Rather than having a debate about whether existing Medicare promises were affordable (and they weren't, even before the bill was passed) and how much they needed to be cut to make them affordable, we were having a debate about how big of a benefit to *add* to Medicare.
Conservatives can always claim that their version was "more responsible" or "more affordable" or whatever. And this may well be true. But if they do this, they have already conceded Democrats' premise that Medicare needs to be expanded.
In my book, expanding Medicare is a "liberal" policy. The opposite of that liberal policy is not expanding Medicare by less... it's *cutting* Medicare, or at the very least reforming it in a cost-neutral way.
Best case, "big government conservatism" is "liberalism lite." It's a phony version of liberalism that fools no one and satisfies no one.
Now, there may be some other differences between the two, like when we talk about "faith-based initiatives." But again, the mere concept "faith-based initiatives" concedes the liberal premise. The liberal premise is that we need to have welfare programs run by the federal government. The conservative premise ought to be that the federal government should *not* run welfare programs... period... and that welfare should be left to the states and the counties.
Instead, "compassionate conservatives" conceded the liberal premise that we need to have federal welfare programs, and said: "The real problem with those welfare programs is that they don't use the teachings of Jesus Christ. If only we could bring the word of God to the poor, we could do a better job of helping them!" Now, all of the sudden, rather than fighting to devolve welfare to the states, we're fighting about how to run (and possibly expand) the federal programs... again, the liberal premise has been conceded.
Mind you, many conservatives -- even many social conservatives! -- considered "faith-based initiatives" to be a ridiculous idea from day one. But it *was* part of Bush's campaign...
Arguably, I oversimplified in saying '"compassionate conservatism" = "liberalism"'. It isn't quite that simple. But the effect is the same: both favor expansion of government. Both are opposites to small government conservatism.
Unlike Reagan, Bush is not and has never been a small government conservative. Can anyone even *imagine* Bush saying "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem?" Or "It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people?"
We need that Reagan spirit exemplified by those two quotes back in the Republican Party. Even if it doesn't win elections right away... at least the party will have a *purpose* again, rather than just "power for power's sake" or "we can out-liberal the liberals at their own game" -- both of which directly lead to the disaster of '06.
50-50 Senate is thankless
It's hard to imagine a task more painful and thankless than corralling a 50-50 Senate into doing... well... anything.
By having a 51-50 nominal majority, you get blamed for everything that goes wrong and everything that does or doesn't get done, while having almost no power to actually do anything.
You need 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate except for a budget reconciliation bill. And since budget reconciliation has that 10-year cutoff, then you get stuck with things like these silly 2010 tax cut expirations.
You may get stuck with evenly divided committees, as happened in the 2001 Senate (equal number of Republicans and Democrats on each committee).
To win even your 51 votes, you can't afford a single defection from your party, so you need strict party discipline. And yet that strict party discipline doesn't sit well with folks like Jeffords or Chafee, who can easily be tempted to jump ship.
You also need every senator (plus the VP) to be present at basically every single vote. You can't say "we're going to win anyway, so we can afford to do a vote with Sen. X out of town."
Once it came down to Virginia and Montana, I was actually rooting for Republicans to lose them both. Burns was a mediocre senator, while Allen was a reasonable senator but had run a terrible campaign that was hurting Republicans everywhere. Both deserved to lose anyway, and it leaves Democrats with that tiny 51-seat majority that may come back to haunt them.
Now Republicans get to learn how to do those "filibuster" things again...
'06 House handicapping
http://www.electionp...
The only one I might object to is KY-03 -- I would put that one in the "Power of Incumbency" category as hard to win back (it's a Kerry district).
He's also missing the GA-08 and GA-12 seats, which are *very* vulnerable to going red in '08. GA-12 had less than a 1000-vote spread. There's also IL-08, a very conservative district that could perhaps flip on a rematch, although it's a bit more of a stretch. And surely there will be other new races that will come up as retirements happen.
It will be hard for Republicans to get back to 230 any time soon, but they should be able to cut the Democratic majority pretty substantially with even an "OK" year.
To get back a majority, Republicans are going to need to figure out how to win back the suburbs and the West, not just the rural areas and the South. They also cannot afford to completely write off the Northeast.
that is not necessarily true
Bush doesn't need to get new funding to send those troops. He can just send them now, within the current appropriation, and ask for more funding later when he runs out of funds a lot earlier (actually even that running out of funds would only be virtual and they will keep being funded - it's not like have a limited amount of cash that they watch running out). That would make the decision tougher for dems because the troops would already be there.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
But that still doesn't address selling it to the public,
There are political considerations. The presidential election and new congressional elections are only two years away. If Bush sends 50,000 more troops, the situation on the ground will have to show marked improvement or he will be sinking Republican hopes.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Oh, all is lost for the Democrats!
That's funny.
Here's while I;ll take the Dem majority in the Senate: the Supreme Court.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Small government
Conservatives talk about wanting "small government", but I'm never sure what this is supposed to mean in practice.
The federal government has three basic functions:
1. It controls the behavior of people and institutions
2. It provides services needed to be managed on a federal level
3. It provides social services to individuals
Let's take these in order:
1. This is the law-making, policing and enforcement area. The basic difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is that liberals think regulation of personal behavior should be kept to a minimum (abortion, marriage, religious practices, etc) while conservatives think regulation of business behavior should be kept to a minimum (health and safety regulations, worker rights, mergers, etc). Each group has no trouble with seeing government get "bigger" to enforce their preferred behavior on others. So Sarbanes-Oxley is seen by conservatives as making government bigger, but passing national gay marriage laws isn't.
2. This is the area of raising armies, national spy agencies and civil engineering projects that are beyond the means of local governments. While there are some excesses (the bridge to "nowhere"), most people favor such project. This is how the interstate highway system got built as well as promotion of civil aviation, ports, etc.
3. Most federal personal services (Medicare, Social Security, etc) are funded by dedicated tax streams. They are not government programs, they are government administered programs. The government is acting as a collection and disbursing agent. Until Vietnam these were not part of the overall federal budget and were added in to dilute the percentage of federal spending going to the war. There is no real support to cut these programs back, in fact history has shown that expansions of existing programs are quickly regarded as essential.
So, what does smaller government mean. A smaller military or fewer civil engineering projects? Or perhaps just removing business restrictions and lowering taxes? Or maybe we should eliminate Social Security?
We live in an era of increasing concentration. Firms get bigger and more international. Organizations are becoming trans-national (UN, WTO, World Court, etc). So it is unrealistic to think that governments would get smaller - they need to grow in response to the size of the organizations they need to deal with.
As far as I can see "smaller government" is a code word for eliminating social services to the poor and cutting taxes to the rich. If I'm wrong then exactly which parts of government are too big?
PS. It isn't going to happen. Hoping for a new "conservative" party which will actually implement libertarian ideals is never going to happen. The Republicans were put in power and failed to deliver. This is because they talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. The "real" Republican party is, and has been for all of the 20th Century, the party of plutocracy. That they manage to trick so many people of average means into supporting their self-serving agenda is one of the marvels of the age.
Name one thing the Republicans did during the 20th Century that has had a lasting effect on how society is currently being run. Get over your Utopian dreams and start to work on ideas on how to regulate the huge power blocks that run the world.
--- Policies not Politics
Democratic Party--party of pragmatic Govt
Democrats are a party where they believe we should have commonsense policies that work for the common good. Solve problems not offer solution then find out the problem afterwards--like Iraq War, then cook WMD evidence. Sometimes the solution is govt sometimes it is private industry sometimes a hybrid. Sometimes the solution involves conservatism sometimes it requires liberalism for whatever that means.
Netroots aggressively supported who you called conservative Democrats--why? because they believe in their integrity and commonsense not whether they are pro choice or pro life. Remember netoots are 40's professional, educated, not idealists or romantics. They just wanted commonsense and pragmatic govt to return. They are for 50 state strategy and invite more rural people to the Dem Party. They want a people powered politics and govt not special interest or one crony industry oriented.
Even the whole world is cheering and stockmarket is hailing--Democratic Party victory.
Democrats were against No Child Left Behind. They were against Medicare Prescription plan because it was designed just to benefit Pharmaceutical Industry and Insurance Industry. Democrats are also against torture and eavesdropping without FISA oversight, which conservatives should also be against.
ROBERT GATES--RESPONSIBLE for AL queda?
What do you all think about this--especially the conservatives.
http://www.dailykos....
Clinton, Carter--decrease govt more than anyone
By streamlining and making them more efficient.
Smaller govt for GOP --Privatization.
Privatize govt. Instead of employing people to do a function, hire a private company with no bid contract and pay them with tax payer money which they can waste.
Example--instead of army hiring their own cooks and services in Iraq--Halliburton will do it charging big profits and waste--without oversight.
Instead of hiring more soldiers--they hire mercenaries or private army and paid many times than the average soldier pay.
Instead of govt managing public schools, they channel tax payer money to private charter schools who will be exempt from NCLB and later on would charge increasing tuition fees when defunded public schools dont work anymore.
Instead of efficiently run medicare channel tax payer money to health insurance companies which will increase premiums everytime you use it and and if you are too sick will not even insure you. And when you need to use it provide lots of bureaucratic hassles to get a needed MRI or surgery.
there was absolutely nothing wrong
with funding jihadists back then. This is a non-issue.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think....
...there are 3,000+ people who might disagree with that assessment as of 9/11.
What if we didnt fund it
What was the worse that would happen?
But funding it--you just told us that the main problem right now, even justifying as to disavow constitution --ie torture and eavesdropping --is islamic extremism.
But their growthto the point now we need to have long lines in airport and cut our civil liberties is because we funded them. Extremism + money is very very dangerous.
if we lived in your idealized pacifist world
we'd be bowing to Mecca 5 times a day by now.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
yeah torture and eavesdropping
is really there in the constitution in bright red letters. Relax with the silly rhetoric.
Islamic terrorism did not happen because of "our funding". That assessment is factless.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The CIA operation in Afghanistan in the 80s
was a mixed bag.
One the one hand, we heavily funded Islamic extremists like Gulbiddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan warlord with very close ties to Pakistan's ISI and Bin Laden.
On the other hand, we also funded Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Lion of Panjshir. Massoud was an ethnic Tajik and a brilliant and charismatic guerrilla leader who held off six major Soviet armored assaults on the Panjshir Valley.
qui tacet consentire
Dig deeper
While the assessment that funding jihadists then = Islamic terrorism now may be a stretch, the underlying truth is that meddling in the affairs of other countries, no matter how solid the justification, has unintended consequences that may or may not turn out to be a bigger problem than the original problem the meddling was trying to solve.
While saying there is a direct coorelation is false, it is also false to say that our actions had zero effect on the subsequent developments.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
in addition to being
one of our best friends. Massoud that is.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Funding madrassas is a big problem
Afghanistan-Soviet era was more secular--women working and studying and in govt.
Madrassas manufactured militant jihadist extremists in thousands and millions which spread throughout muslim countries even in Africa, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.
I think there is a closer correlation than what you think. Because the muslim world became more conservative or at least threatened by their extremist factions.
Building a school
and attending a school are two different things. No one is forcing them to attend; they are choosing to do so. It meshes well with their traditions and the Islamic desire to memorize the Koran and the related religious texts. That they also choose to emphasize the extreme parts of their religion is their choice.
What you're saying is that building a road makes people drive Hummers. I'm saying that people choose what to do with that road. We could use it for bicycles. Or Hummers. Our choice.
I'm not denying any affect; we certainly have meddled in international affairs. But we have not robbed them of free will. They can use any excuse they want to justify their actions, but that does not absolve them of responsibility for their choice of action. We should understand our role, but we should not assume that we are the sole force and cause of all subsequent events.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Why do you think I'm pacifist?
I'm just saying we followed a policy in the past that directly resulted in the attacks on 9/11 and that is hardly irrelevant to the discussion. Just because your guys made a bad call in the past doesn't mean we just write it off. Perhaps if we learned from our mistakes we might not make them next time around? Just think how much treasure and blood we could have saved if the neo-cons who pushed Iraq had actually studied our experience in Vietnam (or France's or China's or Japan's, etc. etc.).
And I'm not being anti-Republican. There are plenty of mistakes from Democratic administrations in the past we shouldn't overlook either it's just that we're dealing with the Bush administration at the moment which makes Gates previous decisions very pertinent.
Using the "power of the purse"...what a laugh.
Karl Rove would be pissing in his pants if Democrats came out and cut funding for our boys over there. We couldn't hand him a better baseball bat to beat us with.
No, make no mistake about it, this Iraqi fiasco is dubya's war. We face real obsticals with our Middle East dealings. We'll leave, but we won't leave right away, nor will we leave without everyone, Iraqi's, Repubs & Dems all on the same page.
While I support pulling out of Iraq, I think & would support that we need to beef up both the military and the reconstruction funding in Afganistan. We can still make a difference there. Osama is in Pakistan anyhow. We should be closer just so that we can eventually bring him to justice - (that's a nice way of saying string the bastard up).
Please excuse some of my words in that last post.
Which is my point...
Our funding and support of Massoud was criminally negligent compared to what went to the extremists thanks to Pakistan. That was a mistake in policy that directly relates to our situation today. We should actually examine why and how that happened in order to try to improve our situation today - not ignore the whole history and hope we don't make the same mistakes!
But according to Ender this irrelevant to our current policy so why are we discussing it? Or anything for that matter? :)
I agree with you LZ,
George Bush43 is not conservative in that he wants a big government.
But that's not what he ran on in 2000 nor in 2004. Both times he was pledging to shrink the federal government.
What do you call it when someone says they are going to do one thing and then turns around and does the exact opposite? What do you call it when you call someone on doing the exact opposite and they come out and say you are the one who's lying and then question your patriotism, loyalty to the US, etc. Many of us call that hypocracy. I haven't seen it described that way on the right leaning sites read. What about you?
true
there are consequences for our actions. Our involvement (right or wrong, I think worthwhile) focused their attention on us and made us a convenient target once the Russians were gone. And God knows, they need a target.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
why would you think
I would agree with "I'm just saying we followed a policy in the past that directly resulted in the attacks on 9/11 and that is hardly irrelevant to the discussion."???
There is no direct relation between the two and no one (even on the democratic side) suggested it. Just because you think that is the case, it does not become realistic.
Our support for mujahadeen fighting in Afghanistan did not make them hate us overnight. There are many many factors for some of them eventually turning on us and blaming our policies is extremely blind.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yes but if that is the only school available in your town...
Then it is not voluntary. If there is a group with money in a town giving free schools and hope to a poor area--then there is no competition and no other alternative.
The problem Ender wasn't that we helped them then,
the problem was we helped them & then dropped them all when the Soviets finally left.
It was our obligation to help them build a new Afganistan then & we blew it. I'm not pointing fingers as to who did it, I'm saying we all lost out cause we didn't do it right.
Had we had some hand in rebuilding Afgainstan then, maybe the Taliban wouldn't have taken over or maybe the Taliban wouldn't have been so dismissive of the west had we helped them.
But you're right...I am being an idealist.
I'm not saying its the only reason...
...you're right - there have been conflicts between fundamentalist Muslims and Western powers for the past 500 years. Our policies are not the only factor but if not for those policies we wouldn't be facing such a well-armed, global enemy with a chip on their shoulder aimed at us! And to keep feeding that enemy (or the newest generation of it) while ignoring our past policies is not just ignorant but counter-productive.
How can you say there is no direct link between the two? How do you define direct? Try reading some of the relevant literature - "Charlie Wilson's War" and "Ghost Wars" and see how indirect the connection is!
That proves the point further
that the dems don't have as much control over Iraq as LZ claims. Bush has many ways to coerce Congress into funding, and he is still commander in chief last I checked. LZ is already trying the bait and switch tactic of blame the dems for the Iraq war already. At least Ender, probably not intentionally, is not falling for it yet.
Social conservatives are reactionary
For a majority of those for outlawing abortion, the only consistent reasoning is that they are disempowering women (otherwise they'd be all for imprisoning the mother as well)
The anti-gay amendment, flag burning amendment etc. just to name a few.
The fiscal conservatives (distinct from corporate conservatives) were squeezed out in favor of the social reactionaries who could deliver votes.
What you wrote here is all fine and dandy
but it is a red herring since I was not talking about any of the things you bring up other than maybe Abramoff. Corruption
hurt the GOP more than anything else, and this corruption is due to a consolidation of power for too long.
All the other stuff you wrote might be why you are mad, but it is not what I was discussing, nor why the Republicans lost.
You should learn what the facts are
before you throw around a big word like factless, Ender.
American policy has been tied to the growth and virulence of the Islamic fundamentalist movement since the 60s. And you can stuff that bunk about praying toward Mecca in the same tight little place your conservative forebears could stuff their rice paddy rhetoric from the same period.
Your simple refusal to believe the evidence
doesn't make your position factual, Ender. Just ignorant. 
This gets to a subject which I find puzzling
You rail constantly about Islamic fundamentalism but you somehow don't hold the administration repsonsible for taking us off on a distraction in Iraq when the majority of the funding for jihadists, and 15 of 19 terrorists who struck us on 9-11, come from Saudi Arabia and the maddrasses that crank out jihadists and which are supported by Saudi elites.
Why not go to the source? Why aren't you advocating for us to move on Saudi Arabia? You're forever advocating violence against these radicals. Well, we know where they are. They're in Saudi Arabia.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
eh
Saudi Arabia is a problem because technically it is:
1. relatively friendly (to US) government
2. would create huge instability in oil prices and supply if we decided to make it our battleground
3. Saudi Arabia never provoked us
4. they share intelligence on the various terrorists operating inside and outside its borders
I'd love to take Saudi Arabia on but it's just not realistic or feasible and would create more problems. Also most of the actual terrorists are outside of Saudi Arabia regardless of who is funding them.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You seem to be forgetting about action-reaction pairing
We arm a bunch of fanatics in the middle east to drive off the soviets and as a result there are a bunch of trained armed fanatics in strategic parts of the middle east.
Like a lot of our problems (Noriega, Hussein, Ho Chi Minh, etc) we had a hand in creating our enemy because we were convinced of our genius and ability to meddle without it blowing up in our face depiste the fact that every time we meddle it blows up in our face.
If Reagan had not be elected president there would be no Al qaeda. That's the gipper's legacy to the world- supporting terrorism in latin america and the middle east.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Baloney.
We could do all sorts of thing with the Saudis beyond invading or bombing them.
But the very fact that they are holding hands iwth Bush with one hand while they are funding al Qaeda with the other is criminal. Bush, his old man and the rest of crew (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) have covered for these scumbags for years.
15 of the 19 attackers.
And we invade Iraq.
WTF...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Shut-outs: get used to it
"Allen blows a seat that he had absolutely no business losing. His campaign was a complete disaster across the board."
In other words, he didn't do a good enough job of covering up the fact that he's a racist.
There's a reason America's first electoral shut-out happened now: we have more information. When the MSM ran the show, the conservative filters inherit in corporate journalism prohibited things like "maccaca" come to light. Once information-distribution is in the hands of voters, we can discover all sorts of intersting things about a candidate that we never could before.
So my advice to Republicans is this: don't worry about your campaigning skills, they're top-notch. It's your sense of character that is flawed. Given that most of the GOP believes the hoax that Bush is a Christian, though, I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel coming any time soon unless you purge your party of any and all racists, xenophobes, and such.
Unfortunately, such a purging will only bring a moral light to the end of the tunnel; without that electoral group, the GOP is dead in the water.
Man, it's raining Mayan gods in here
First the Mayan god of rain and now the Mayan god of evil? What's nest, Nacon or Yum Kaax?
This is my way of welcoming you to the site. Good points BTW.
are you Tlaloc's relative?
Just checking based on your name :)
Thanks for a sweet message. We all know that republicans are all racist, sexist, and homophobic so you are not exactly illuminating anything new. And if all of us are that, then we don't have any problems voting for people that publically exhibit those traits. Of course our candidates will now have to do a better job of masking em in order to woo those pure, non-judgemental, and non-bigoted independent and moderate dem voters.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
good points?????? lol
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I meant
about your parties campaigning skills. Top notch!
Um...
I am not sure, but I believe the point of the comment was that if you want to claim the mantle of moral superiority, you are also subject, therefore, to a more harsh and strict judgement in regards to your actions.
The Republican Party, while kissing up to its religious right base, wears that moral mantle at its peril.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
hehe I know
and I appreciate it :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'd kiss up to the religious base
without being all that moral or religious myself. So what. You don't have to be all that to support the agenda of someone else.
If I were to run for congress I'd pledge to vote pro-life and pro-family (if I was in that kind of district) and tell people to judge me based on my votes and not on my own personal life. It would be a contract with the voters. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Inbred
. . . you left out inbred. And uneducated.
The nice thing about a democracy is that we all get to vote. The disturbing thing about democracy is that we all get to vote.
And as an independent, I object to the pure label. Pure's nowhere near as much fun, ya know ;}
Our newest Mayan god is welcome, of course, but perhaps mistakes this site for some other? Our current Mayan god is much more civil and enjoyable to converse with.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran