Tea Parties, Truth, and Capitalism

[Kathianne]

There's a real divide forming, the WH is beginning to get it. Most of us already do:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104689179070747.html


The Real Culture War Is Over Capitalism
Tea parties, 'ethical populism,' and the moral case against redistribution.
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS

There is a major cultural schism developing in America. But it's not over abortion, same-sex marriage or home schooling, as important as these issues are. The new divide centers on free enterprise -- the principle at the core of American culture.

Despite President Barack Obama's early personal popularity, we can see the beginnings of this schism in the "tea parties" that have sprung up around the country. In these grass-roots protests, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans have joined together to make public their opposition to government deficits, unaccountable bureaucratic power, and a sense that the government is too willing to prop up those who engaged in corporate malfeasance and mortgage fraud.

The data support the protesters' concerns. In a publication with the ironic title, "A New Era of Responsibility," the president's budget office reveals average deficits of 4.7% in the five years after this recession is over. The Congressional Budget Office predicts $9.3 trillion in new debt over the coming decade.

And what investments justify our leaving this gargantuan bill for our children and grandchildren to pay? Absurdities, in the view of many -- from bailing out General Motors and the United Auto Workers to building an environmentally friendly Frisbee golf course in Austin, Texas. On behalf of corporate welfare, political largess and powerful special interests, government spending will grow continuously in the coming years as a percentage of the economy -- as will tax collections.

Still, the tea parties are not based on the cold wonkery of budget data. They are based on an "ethical populism." The protesters are homeowners who didn't walk away from their mortgages, small business owners who don't want corporate welfare and bankers who kept their heads during the frenzy and don't need bailouts. They were the people who were doing the important things right -- and who are now watching elected politicians reward those who did the important things wrong....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_chrysler_analysis


Analysis: Auto deal extends Obama's reach, risk

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
57 mins ago

WASHINGTON – In forcing a swift bankruptcy on Chrysler, President Barack Obama expanded the risk and reach of the presidency in the hope that the hidebound auto industry will find a way to remake itself.

The government's intervention with Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp. has been far more intrusive than the way it has confronted troubled financial companies. The administration's influence now ranges from guaranteeing your brake pads to pushing for new products on the assembly line.

As Obama himself put it, "If the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then, doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same."

Despite an additional $8 billion taxpayer infusion into Chrysler, the president and his advisers say the administration has no desire to be in the auto business. And they say they don't intend to micromanage the company.
But as part of Thursday's arrangement, the government will be an investor in the new Chrysler company, and the Treasury Department will select four of its new directors, all of them presumably sympathetic with the White House's vision of what the car of the future should be.

In cutting the deal, Obama buys himself good will with an important labor force, especially in a state, Michigan, suffering hugely from unemployment. At the same time he gets to push a key policy goal, fuel-efficiency, not just as president but as a powerful company investor.

But he also is putting billions of dollars of taxpayer money at risk at a time of rising anxiety about government bailouts and soaring deficits....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/29/national/w143836D44.DTL


FACT CHECK: Obama's job, deficit claims are iffy
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, April 30, 2009
(04-30) 00:13 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

President Barack Obama turned the page on 100 days in office with an iffy boast about job creation and claims of fiscal prudence that are hard to square with his spending.

Obama spoke with abundant confidence about his chances for achieving the big-ticket items on his agenda despite economic calamity:

_His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller for many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits the government is negotiating.

_He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

_He pitched a remedy for Social Security's long-term crisis that analysts say won't fix half the problem.

Obama held a prime-time news conference Wednesday and addressed citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school, using both events to review progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

A look at some of his claims:

OBAMA: "We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs." — from news conference.

THE FACTS: This assertion is dubious on several levels. For starters, the U.S. has lost more than 1.2 million jobs since Obama took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even if Obama's stimulus bill saved or created as many jobs as he says, that number is dwarfed by the number of recent job losses.

But Obama's number is murky, at best. The White House has not yet announced how it intends to count jobs created by the stimulus bill. Obama's number is based on a job-counting formula that his economists have developed but have not made public. Until that formula is announced — probably in the coming week or so — there's no way to assess its accuracy.

Whatever the formula, economists who study job creation say it will require some creative math. That's because Obama has lumped "jobs saved" in with "jobs created." Even economists for organizations that stand to benefit from the stimulus concede it probably is impossible to estimate saved jobs because that would require calculating a hypothetical: how many people would have lost their jobs without the stimulus.....

[Joe Steel]

Honestly, do you think these "tea parties" are anything more than whine fests?

About 70% of the country thinks the government is doing the a good job. If there's a divide forming it's between normal, rational Americans and dead-end losers.

[Nukeman]

Honestly, do you think these "tea parties" are anything more than whine fests?

About 70% of the country thinks the government is doing the a good job. If there's a divide forming it's between normal, rational Americans and dead-end losers.
:lol::lol::lol: that is sooo funny Joe. the TEA Party I went to with my family was filled with middle class Americans that were all dressed nicely and very well behaved, not the chanting screaming lunatics of the left every time someone steps on their toes.....

Joe you are in for a rude awakening when this matures into a new political party and I think YOU Will be very surprised at the number of SANE, INTELLIGENT, PROFESSIONAL people that are part of this movement....

[mundame]

when this matures into a new political party


I sure hope it matures into a NEW political party --- the GOP has so failed us.

I went to a tea party near me ----- HUNDREDS of people gathered at the courtyard and overflowing into the streets of this small town, 100% homemade signs, no pols speaking, everyone there in the POURING RAIN.

I was very impressed. When I left, I drove through in my red pickup truck and gave "shave and a hair cut, six bits" twice on the horn, to great applause (cars honking and people cheering was about all the entertainment there was, so I thought I'd better participate.) http://macg.net/emoticons/smilebow.gif

[April15]

A new party would be an improvement over republican'ts.
I just don't see that happening though. This nation desperately needed to change direction from Bushco's fascism. Now it is time to right the ship and some still feel failure is an option. Barrack will not be a failure like his predesessor.

[red states rule]

A new party would be an improvement over republican'ts.
I just don't see that happening though. This nation desperately needed to change direction from Bushco's fascism. Now it is time to right the ship and some still feel failure is an option. Barrack will not be a failure like his predesessor.


You mean this change April?

Bush deficit - $500 billion

Obama deficit - $2 trillion

Bush budget - $3.1 trillion

Obama budget - $3.7 trillion

Obama promised no pork or earmarks in his "stimulus" bill - well 9,000 earmarks were in the bill

How about some of the promises"

End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000

"Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all."
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

Well -

No proposal to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000
Updated: Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

President Obama's campaign pledge to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 has fallen off the radar.

It wasn't part of the tax cuts in the economic stimulus bill, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It wasn't in Obama's first budget outline, which was approved by Congress on April 2, 2009. And it's not part of any proposed legislation that we can find.

Today, on Tax Day, Obama gave a speech in which he talked about his other tax promises and how he wants to reshape the tax code to make it simple and more efficient. But he never mentioned his promise of curtailing the income tax for seniors.

The Obama administration has done other things for seniors. Thanks to the stimulus bill, for example, everyone who gets Social Security benefits will receive a $250 check from the government in May. But the bold promise to end taxes for seniors if they make less than $50,000 seems to be forgotten.

We asked the White House about it, but got no response. If this promise is ever revived, we'll revisit our ruling. But for now, this is a Promise Broken.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Taxes-4-15-09/



Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs
"During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired."

http://change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/



$3,000 tax credit not in stimulus bill, no future action seen
Updated: Tuesday, February 17th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

President Obama first proposed a $3,000 tax credit for businesses that add to their payroll when he was campaigning for president and the U.S. economy had taken a serious nosedive. After winning the election and taking office, he began working on a stimulus bill with Congress. But this idea soon stalled and appears to be dead.

It never got any significant support in Congress, even from Democrats. Lawmakers said they were concerned the credit wasn't enough of an incentive to get companies to hire additional workers. Tax policy analysts said the credit would be an administrative nightmare to implement. Companies might eliminate a job and then create it again later in hopes of getting the tax credit.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said at a news conference on Jan. 14, 2009, that both Democrats and Republicans had problems with the measure.

"If you have a company and you're selling fewer shingles, $3,000 isn't going to get you to hire somebody when your sales are shrinking," Schumer said.

The credit was never part of the stimulus legislation as far as we saw, and it was not included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which Obama signed into law on Feb. 17, 2009. Likewise, we see no indication that this idea might re-emerge. So for now, we rate it Promise Broken.

Sources:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00001:

[Joe Steel]

[T]he TEA Party I went to with my family was filled with middle class Americans that were all dressed nicely and very well behaved, not the chanting screaming lunatics of the left every time someone steps on their toes.....

That just makes them well-dressed, well-behaved, dead-end losers. It's a state of mind not behavior.


Joe you are in for a rude awakening when this matures into a new political party and I think YOU Will be very surprised at the number of SANE, INTELLIGENT, PROFESSIONAL people that are part of this movement....

You may be right. If it's more than 2%, I'll be surprised.

[red states rule]

That just makes them well-dressed, well-behaved, dead-end losers. It's a state of mind not behavior.



You may be right. If it's more than 2%, I'll be surprised.

Why is it the Obamsbots now LOVE massive deficits, and ever growing budgets

They were bad things when Bush was President

[Nukeman]

That just makes them well-dressed, well-behaved, dead-end losers. It's a state of mind not behavior.



You may be right. If it's more than 2%, I'll be surprised.
Tell me Joe what do the TEA parties mean to YOU??? I am honestly asking you a question and I want to know what YOU think the TEA parties are all about. I feel your misinformed of what they represent to most of us. I am not talking the fringe you have with each and every group but I am talking the base of this movement....


So tell me Joe what do the TEA parties represent to the average person attending???????? You know those "dead-end loser" you speak of. Ohh by the way those losers are the ones paying a vast majority of the tax in this country. I hope for your sake the "losers" really don't decide to become what you portray them as being....

[mundame]

Joe you are in for a rude awakening when this matures into a new political party and I think YOU Will be very surprised at the number of SANE, INTELLIGENT, PROFESSIONAL people that are part of this movement....




You may be right. If it's more than 2%, I'll be surprised.


Shooooooo.......it was nearly ALL professional people at the one I was at. We're talking mainly rightwing people here, right? They aren't likely to be proletariats, Workers of the World.

[Kathianne]

Shooooooo.......it was nearly ALL professional people at the one I was at. We're talking mainly rightwing people here, right? They aren't likely to be proletariats, Workers of the World.

From what I've seen, the attendees ran the gamut of right of left. Without exception they were protesting unchecked spending and the logical outcome of much higher taxation in the future-a 'future' that is currently being ignored by the powers that be. The fact that Bush spent a lot, does not mitigate what is now going down.

My hope for the tea party movement is that it will not be co-opted by a Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan, or Ron Paul, something the emerging leadership seems to recognize and react to.

[red states rule]

A new party would be an improvement over republican'ts.
I just don't see that happening though. This nation desperately needed to change direction from Bushco's fascism. Now it is time to right the ship and some still feel failure is an option. Barrack will not be a failure like his predesessor.

Meanwhile, how are is your party doing as far as keping the promises they made during the last election?

If the first 100 days is any indication, Obama will outpend, and double the national debt. Whay is that OK compared to what Pres Bush did?

Is that "D" at the end of his name clouding your judgement again?

As far as the people who went to the Tea parties

<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/largeplayer011008/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='FOX News' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='275' width='305' flashvars='playerId=011008&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=undefined&referralObject=4780771' />

[Agnapostate]

Free enterprise has no role within capitalism. In fact, contrary to popular belief, socialism would play a greater role in promoting free market enterprise than capitalism would. As put by Jaroslav Vanek, "[t]he capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market."

[Jeff]

A new party would be an improvement over republican'ts.
I just don't see that happening though. This nation desperately needed to change direction from Bushco's fascism. Now it is time to right the ship and some still feel failure is an option. Barrack will not be a failure like his predesessor.

Your Right , he has already passed Bush, he is the worst thing that could of happened to this country

[Jeff]

Honestly, do you think these "tea parties" are anything more than whine fests?

About 70% of the country thinks the government is doing the a good job. If there's a divide forming it's between normal, rational Americans and dead-end losers.

Were do you get these statistics the Liberal times?If he makes it 4 years, I will be surprised but he has all ready turned enough of his supporters against him that he is done

[mundame]

Without exception they were protesting unchecked spending and the logical outcome of much higher taxation in the future-

Yes, that was certainly true of the signs at the one I went to.



My hope for the tea party movement is that it will not be co-opted by a Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan, or Ron Paul, something the emerging leadership seems to recognize and react to.

It's utterly incoherent, though --- it has to be "co-opted" by a politician or political organization of some sort or where can it go? Remember the Perot movement --- it formed behind a charismatic leader. When he went crazy and dropped out of the race, the party continued for two election cycles, floundering worse and worse.

The one thing that canNOT co-opt these gatherings is the GOP. It was very clear in mine that the people there hated the parties and professional pols and view them as the problem, not the solution, and that's how I feel now. They can't tuck us into the GOP; that's where we've cut free from because of how badly they ran down the country.

A charismatic leader could co-opt these folks, like Reagan or Perot, but we seem to have run short of anybody the rightwing can trust.

If you are saying that leftwingers were there as well as rightwingers --- I didn't see that. Not that I could tell for sure, but I'd say it was predominantly rightwingers, respectable but fed-up people, not "rightwingnuts," just really fed-up people who don't like ANY of what's going on, in either political party.


Things cannot be said to be going well, that's for sure.

[Kathianne]

Yes, that was certainly true of the signs at the one I went to.




It's utterly incoherent, though --- it has to be "co-opted" by a politician or political organization of some sort or where can it go? Remember the Perot movement --- it formed behind a charismatic leader. When he went crazy and dropped out of the race, the party continued for two election cycles, floundering worse and worse.

The one thing that canNOT co-opt these gatherings is the GOP. It was very clear in mine that the people there hated the parties and professional pols and view them as the problem, not the solution, and that's how I feel now. They can't tuck us into the GOP; that's where we've cut free from because of how badly they ran down the country.

A charismatic leader could co-opt these folks, like Reagan or Perot, but we seem to have run short of anybody the rightwing can trust.

If you are saying that leftwingers were there as well as rightwingers --- I didn't see that. Not that I could tell for sure, but I'd say it was predominantly rightwingers, respectable but fed-up people, not "rightwingnuts," just really fed-up people who don't like ANY of what's going on, in either political party.


Things cannot be said to be going well, that's for sure.

Last things first, not saying 'left wingers', unless you count the press in Chicago. But many 'independents' which is where I see some movement in the electorate.

The GOP has some talent, that might do better out of the GOP, none of those folks above. Gingrich is very smart, but not so good as a politician. The rest, just scary.

[red states rule]

Last things first, not saying 'left wingers', unless you count the press in Chicago. But many 'independents' which is where I see some movement in the electorate.

The GOP has some talent, that might do better out of the GOP, none of those folks above. Gingrich is very smart, but not so good as a politician. The rest, just scary.

From the video I have seen, most of the people at the Tea Parties were wroking class people. They were the folks who get up every morning, get their kids ready for school, then go off to work

No racists. No extremists. Only people exercising their First Amendment rights. But since they are openly disagreeing with Pres Obama they are being attacked and vilified.

[Kathianne]

From the video I have seen, most of the people at the Tea Parties were wroking class people. They were the folks who get up every morning, get their kids ready for school, then go off to work

No racists. No extremists. Only people exercising their First Amendment rights. But since they are openly disagreeing with Pres Obama they are being attacked and vilified.

There were all 'classes' of people there, it's not a 'working class' movement. They were fed up with government, both political parties. It's what government is, not just Obama.

[red states rule]

There were all 'classes' of people there, it's not a 'working class' movement. They were fed up with government, both political parties. It's what government is, not just Obama.

I saw interviews and they did come from all walks of life Kathy. I hope the July 4th tea parties are bigger and better

Of course, we will have to endure how the liberal media covers the tea parties

For example:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HVAkz7GFB_w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HVAkz7GFB_w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Jeff]

I saw interviews and they did come from all walks of life Kathy. I hope the July 4th tea parties are bigger and better

Of course, we will have to endure how the liberal media covers the tea parties

For example:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HVAkz7GFB_w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HVAkz7GFB_w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

All that coverage and as hard as they worked down playing it just shows how worried it is making them, this guy tried to make a joke out of it, but when was the last time anything that wasn't news worthy got this much coverage, there worried, people are seeing threw the BS

[AFbombloader]

That just makes them well-dressed, well-behaved, dead-end losers. It's a state of mind not behavior.



You may be right. If it's more than 2%, I'll be surprised.

I guess my family and I are part of the same "loser" crowd, because I was standing right next to Nuke. Joe, the numbers of Americans being thrown around in your polls are a vast misrepresentation of the real America. They can poll all the tree hugging, left leaning, granola eating people they want to get the numbers to show their point. It is the same thing the GOP was being accused of when they sited polls. They mean nothing. None, and that is not a overstatement, of the people I know are happy with the way things are going. None are satisfied with all the spending. None are overjoyed with all the pork in the stimulus and budget. Maybe the people in NY and CA are happy, but the people I know are not.

AF

[glockmail]

I sure hope it matures into a NEW political party --- the GOP has so failed us.

I went to a tea party near me ----- HUNDREDS of people gathered at the courtyard and overflowing into the streets of this small town, 100% homemade signs, no pols speaking, everyone there in the POURING RAIN.

I was very impressed. When I left, I drove through in my red pickup truck and gave "shave and a hair cut, six bits" twice on the horn, to great applause (cars honking and people cheering was about all the entertainment there was, so I thought I'd better participate.) http://macg.net/emoticons/smilebow.gif A third party isn't the answer. We've got some good conservatives in the GOP, just not enough of them. And the GOP has a proud history of civil rights that has never been exploited properly since the 1970's.

[Kathianne]

A third party isn't the answer. We've got some good conservatives in the GOP, just not enough of them. And the GOP has a proud history of civil rights that has never been exploited properly since the 1970's.

There are some good people in the GOP, however they have little say. I'm now for a third party, unless I hear the GOP say something to change my mind. Unlikely.

[glockmail]

There are some good people in the GOP, however they have little say. I'm now for a third party, unless I hear the GOP say something to change my mind. Unlikely.That a lot of folks to dismiss who've got a "B" or better.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/house/lib_cons.htm?o1=con_composite&o2=desc

[Agnapostate]

The reason for the GOP not "exploiting" their alleged "history of civil rights" probably has a relation to the fact that they had effectively no relation to their current political philosophy during that period.

[Kathianne]

That a lot of folks to dismiss who've got a "B" or better.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/house/lib_cons.htm?o1=con_composite&o2=desc

Everyone thinks 'politicians stink', except their own. I give props to Kirk and Roskum, but they'd fit into a third party too. Funny thing, they are not at all alike.

[red states rule]

Everyone thinks 'politicians stink', except their own. I give props to Kirk and Roskum, but they'd fit into a third party too. Funny thing, they are not at all alike.

Given the change Dems have brought to DC, the 2010 midterms should be a bigger win for the R's then they were in 1994

The problem is, we have few people willing to step up and take on Obama and the Dems

They still want to be "civil" and they want to be respectful of their "friends"

That is not how Dems won the last 2 elections. They moved further to the left, and never let up on theuir attacks. They were far from respectful, and did not give a damn about their "friends"

[Kathianne]

Given the change Dems have brought to DC, the 2010 midterms should be a bigger win for the R's then they were in 1994

The problem is, we have few people willing to step up and take on Obama and the Dems

They still want to be "civil" and they want to be respectful of their "friends"

That is not how Dems won the last 2 elections. They moved further to the left, and never let up on theuir attacks. They were far from respectful, and did not give a damn about their "friends"

Not sure of your point, that because the Reps can grab a share of power in 2010, those that disagree should elect Reps that did the same as far as spending? Nope, that's not what is going to get my vote.

Unlike Jeff and Emmett, I can't throw in with the Libertarians as currently composed, but I will likely vote independents in 2010.

[red states rule]

Not sure of your point, that because the Reps can grab a share of power in 2010, those that disagree should elect Reps that did the same as far as spending? Nope, that's not what is going to get my vote.

Unlike Jeff and Emmett, I can't throw in with the Libertarians as currently composed, but I will likely vote independents in 2010.

Let me be clear. I want Reagan conservatives to step up to the plate and take on the Dems

The R's lost for one readon - they walked away from what took them to the dance. They walked away from Reagan conservatism.

In the last 2 elections, they were nothing but Democrat Light, and the voters went with the real thing

Right now the door is wide open for conservatives to make their move. They will be attakced by the Dems and the liberal meida - but they need to keep up the pressure and give the voters a clear choice

[Kathianne]

Let me be clear. I want Reagan conservatives to step up to the plate and take on the Dems

The R's lost for one readon - they walked away from what took them to the dance. They walked away from Reagan conservatism.

In the last 2 elections, they were nothing but Democrat Light, and the voters went with the real thing

Right now the door is wide open for conservatives to make their move. They will be attakced by the Dems and the liberal meida - but they need to keep up the pressure and give the voters a clear choice

Who do you think are 'Reagan conservatives?' That might be a good place to start. What are the core beliefs? What are the litmus tests, if any?

[red states rule]

Who do you think are 'Reagan conservatives?' That might be a good place to start. What are the core beliefs? What are the litmus tests, if any?

They are few and far between Kat. One man I really like is Congressmen Mike Pence from IN

He impressed me with his calls against spending (even when R's were in pwer) no amnesty (stood up to McCain) and wanted Dems to vote on the Fairness Doctrine

To me the core beliefs I am looking for are

border security and no amnesty

believes the folks are over taxed and the government spends to much

supports drilling to get us off foreign oil

looks to reform SS and Medicare before they bankrupt all of us

Judges who rule on existing law and the Constitution - not create law from the bench


As I said Kat - they are few and far between

[mundame]

As I said Kat - they are few and far between


That's the problem. Conservatives who aren't so far right that they are just mean, and for that reason don't attract any votes, ARE few and far between now.

There are weird candidates, such as Mitt Romney, but ---- no.

Just no.

[red states rule]

That's the problem. Conservatives who aren't so far right that they are just mean, and don't attract any votes ARE few and far between now.

There are weird candidates, such as Mitt Romney, but ---- no.

Just no.

How is "far right" to want to protect our borders, cut taxes AND spending, drilling to get us off foreign oil, reform SS and Medicare before they bankrupt all of us, and Judges who rule on existing law and the Constitution - not create law from the bench?

[Joe Steel]

None, and that is not a overstatement, of the people I know are happy with the way things are going.

So what? No single individual's associations are representative of the whole country.

Most Americans are happy with the way things are going. Obama is restoring the American dream at home and American honor abroad and America knows it. Dead-end losers at Whine Fests can stand around and pump each other but it doesn't mean anything.

[red states rule]

So what? No single individual's associations are representative of the whole country.

Most Americans are happy with the way things are going. Obama is restoring the American dream at home and American honor abroad and America knows it.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1291

36% feel the country is on the right track

[mundame]

How is "far right" to want to protect our borders, cut taxes AND spending, drilling to get us off foreign oil, reform SS and Medicare before they bankrupt all of us, and Judges who rule on existing law and the Constitution - not create law from the bench?


By "just mean" I am talking about that Senator the other day, don't recall his name, who was pleased to say he'd rather have 30 "pure" conservative Republicans in the senate than any moderates!!!!

Leaving 70 Democrats to pass everything they ever wanted. Oh, great plan. His foolish remarks were widely criticized, in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.

But the bottom line is that he wants to throw people out. If they don't believe exactly like him, out out out.

That's not how you win elections. And it's pure meanness, IMO.

[red states rule]

By "just mean" I am talking about that Senator the other day, don't recall his name, who was pleased to say he'd rather have 30 "pure" conservative Republicans in the senate than any moderates!!!!

Leaving 70 Democrats to pass everything they ever wanted. Oh, great plan. His foolish remarks were widely criticized, in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.

But the bottom line is that he wants to throw people out. If they don't believe exactly like him, out out out.

That's not how you win elections. And it's pure meanness, IMO.

and I agree with him. Look how the Dems won. They moved further to the left, promised "change", constantly attacked, and look how they treated Joe Lieberman (until they thought he would be their 60th vote in the Senate)

RINO's are a drag on the party. If they vote with the Dems let them join the Dem party

RINO's told us how McCain was the perfect candidate. McCain siad he would run a respectful campaign and we saw how well that worked

As far as mean, when was the last pro life Dem who spoke at a Dem convention?

[Kathianne]

and I agree with him. Look how the Dems won. They moved further to the left, promised "change", constantly attacked, and look how they treated Joe Lieberman (until they thought he would be their 60th vote in the Senate)

RINO's are a drag on the party. If they vote with the Dems let them join the Dem party

RINO's told us how McCain was the perfect candidate. McCain siad he would run a respectful campaign and we saw how well that worked

As far as mean, when was the last pro life Dem who spoke at a Dem convention?

I'm at school, can't go on about this, but you're just wrong here RSR. That is not a winning strategy and unless you're hoping to be a Whig or Know Nothing, that's where that thinking will lead.

[red states rule]

I'm at school, can't go on about this, but you're just wrong here RSR. That is not a winning strategy and unless you're hoping to be a Whig or Know Nothing, that's where that thinking will lead.

I will look forward to talking to you later on Kathy. We do need to get the RINO's out. People like Snow, Collins, Lindsey Graham, and McCain

They are constantly going agaisnt the party on such basic issues that should offer a choice with the voters

We listened to them in the last election - and we now have Dems in total control

[Kathianne]

I will look forward to talking to you later on Kathy. We do need to get the RINO's out. People like Snow, Collins, Lindsey Graham, and McCain

They are constantly going agaisnt the party on such basic issues that should offer a choice with the voters

We listened to them in the last election - and we now have Dems in total control

Never listened to any of them, with the possible exception of Graham, none are 'leaders' in the party. More later. McCain is a Reagan Republican.

[red states rule]

Never listened to any of them, with the possible exception of Graham, none are 'leaders' in the party. More later. McCain is a Reagan Republican.

They are held up as leaders in the media since they go against Reagan conservatism

I dumped McCanin in 200 when he repeated the worn out Dem talking points when he said he was opposed to tax cuts for the rich

Then he wanted amnesty for illegals

Maybe he once was a Reagan conservative but he is not now. He wants the glowing and fawning interviews from the likes of Chris Matthews as he pokes his finger in the eyes of his party

[glockmail]

Everyone thinks 'politicians stink', except their own. I give props to Kirk and Roskum, but they'd fit into a third party too. Funny thing, they are not at all alike. Are you saying that these rankings aren't based on facts, but cronyism? :lame2:

[glockmail]

The reason for the GOP not "exploiting" their alleged "history of civil rights" probably has a relation to the fact that they had effectively no relation to their current political philosophy during that period. The fact that you can't admit the simple fact that the GOP has a historical record of championing for human rights tells me that it is impossible for you to express a reasonable opinion of its current philosophy. :lame2:

[bullypulpit]

I sure hope it matures into a NEW political party --- the GOP has so failed us.

I went to a tea party near me ----- HUNDREDS of people gathered at the courtyard and overflowing into the streets of this small town, 100% homemade signs, no pols speaking, everyone there in the POURING RAIN.

I was very impressed. When I left, I drove through in my red pickup truck and gave "shave and a hair cut, six bits" twice on the horn, to great applause (cars honking and people cheering was about all the entertainment there was, so I thought I'd better participate.) http://macg.net/emoticons/smilebow.gif

Yes...A new, third party compromised of right wingers and fascist wannabes. Y'all go right ahead and die on that hill. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Yes...A new, third party compromised of right wingers and fascist wannabes. Y'all go right ahead and die on that hill. :laugh2:

Since Mundame did not answer my question - why don't you?

How is "far right" to want to protect our borders, cut taxes AND spending, drilling to get us off foreign oil, reform SS and Medicare before they bankrupt all of us, and Judges who rule on existing law and the Constitution - not create law from the bench?

[glockmail]

Yes...A new, third party compromised of right wingers and fascist wannabes. Y'all go right ahead and die on that hill. :laugh2: Look- Chimpy McPoster is back!

[Agnapostate]

The fact that you can't admit the simple fact that the GOP has a historical record of championing for human rights tells me that it is impossible for you to express a reasonable opinion of its current philosophy. :lame2:

I didn't claim otherwise; I merely mentioned the fact that their political philosophy was substantially different when that "record" was established. (they were the more "progressive" party at the time). It thus lends little credence to Sean Hannity's excited jabbering about the Republican Lincoln ending slavery, or even that a higher percentage of Republican than Democrat senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And the GOP's current philosophy remains broadly devoted to Anglo-Saxon capitalism (though there's thankfully no widespread obsession with Austrian economics as there is with the "Libertarian" Party), as opposed to the Democrats' broad devotion to liberal democratic capitalism.

[glockmail]

I didn't claim otherwise; I merely mentioned the fact that their political philosophy was substantially different when that "record" was established. (they were the more "progressive" party at the time). It thus lends little credence to Sean Hannity's excited jabbering about the Republican Lincoln ending slavery, or even that a higher percentage of Republican than Democrat senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.....Total misrepresentation on your part. The GOP has consistently been for human rights, limited federal government and free market capitalism. Nearly a third of Democrat senators voted "no" to civil rights and only six Republican senators voted no. And the only reason they voted no is that they were led by Goldwater, te presumptive presidential candidate, a dedicated anti-segregationist and member of the NAACP who thought that the bill was unconstitutional due to State's Rights issues.

[Agnapostate]

Total misrepresentation on your part. The GOP has consistently been for human rights, limited federal government and free market capitalism. Nearly a third of Democrat senators voted "no" to civil rights and only six Republican senators voted no. And the only reason they voted no is that they were led by Goldwater, te presumptive presidential candidate, a dedicated anti-segregationist and member of the NAACP who thought that the bill was unconstitutional due to State's Rights issues.

And this was during a period when the GOP's political philosophy was in a significant state of flux, and the effective "swapping" of the social and political philosophies of the two parties to some extent (its continued development is why Goldwater wanted no affiliation with the modern GOP), as evidenced by Strom Thurmond's switch, for instance.

And just as a casual reminder, "free market" capitalism is an oxymoron; capitalism's continued existence necessarily requires governmental economic planning. ;)

[glockmail]

And this was during a period when the GOP's political philosophy was in a significant state of flux, and the effective "swapping" of the social and political philosophies of the two parties to some extent (its continued development is why Goldwater wanted no affiliation with the modern GOP), as evidenced by Strom Thurmond's switch, for instance.
...No wonder you're confused, having bought into the "swapping" theory so elemental to the Liberal Democrat re-education manual.

Why would a political party suddenly "swap" political philosophy after being founded on a philosophy of civil rights, free market economics and federal adherence to limited Constitutional power, even going to war against the Democrat Party? And in 2009 it still claims to be for its founding principles?

I thought you were smarter than that; shame on me.

[Kathianne]

Yes...A new, third party compromised of right wingers and fascist wannabes. Y'all go right ahead and die on that hill. :laugh2:

I do believe the above is the lamest post you've ever made, not to mention the most biased. :thumb:

[Kathianne]

They are held up as leaders in the media since they go against Reagan conservatism

I dumped McCanin in 200 when he repeated the worn out Dem talking points when he said he was opposed to tax cuts for the rich

Then he wanted amnesty for illegals

Maybe he once was a Reagan conservative but he is not now. He wants the glowing and fawning interviews from the likes of Chris Matthews as he pokes his finger in the eyes of his party

It was Reagan that first gave amnesty to the illegals. McCain was against tax cuts for the rich, without spending cuts. More Reagan like than Bush.

Reagan deserves his glory for the things he did, to deify him in the way some are or to 'want to return', well the first is wrong and the second is impossible. To be mired in the past is to be stuck.

I'll not bother with the 'Republican Party', they have all the means to pull themselves up, but don't seem to have the will. Regarding 'conservatives' however, they need to come up with alternatives to what the Democrats are very actively working towards and likely to implement. Once those alternatives are able to be vocalized they must be, with vigor. At the same time, the reasons the 'new policies' of the Democrats will prove disastrous in the long haul must be be articulated often and loudly, examples of how they will hit various demographic groups must be repeated, often.

The values held must be put in any platform, but that does not preclude those who wish to fall under the tent, while disagreeing with some from being with us. To alienate any who disagree in part, well that is the way of never winning. That is what to many of the social conservatives want to do.

[April15]

It was Reagan that first gave amnesty to the illegals. I agree in part with your post and have to spread it around before I can give you reps.

[red states rule]

It was Reagan that first gave amnesty to the illegals. McCain was against tax cuts for the rich, without spending cuts. More Reagan like than Bush.

Reagan deserves his glory for the things he did, to deify him in the way some are or to 'want to return', well the first is wrong and the second is impossible. To be mired in the past is to be stuck.

I'll not bother with the 'Republican Party', they have all the means to pull themselves up, but don't seem to have the will. Regarding 'conservatives' however, they need to come up with alternatives to what the Democrats are very actively working towards and likely to implement. Once those alternatives are able to be vocalized they must be, with vigor. At the same time, the reasons the 'new policies' of the Democrats will prove disastrous in the long haul must be be articulated often and loudly, examples of how they will hit various demographic groups must be repeated, often.

The values held must be put in any platform, but that does not preclude those who wish to fall under the tent, while disagreeing with some from being with us. To alienate any who disagree in part, well that is the way of never winning. That is what to many of the social conservatives want to do.

and Pres Regan was wrong to grant amnesty. He gave amnesty to whaty a few million - and now Dems want to grant it to about 15 million? You do not reward bad behaviour Kat

The tax cuts were not for the rich Kathy - they were for anyone who paid income taxes. Like with Dems, McCain ignored a simple fact. If you pay more in taxes in the first place - you get a bigger tax cut then those who do not pay as much

The basic principals of Reagan conservatism are the solutions to the issues the nation is facing

Ronald Reagan was laughed at, smeared, and attacked by not only the left but Republicans as well in the mid 70's. He ignored it and went on to educate and promoted his ideas Kathy. He did not change with the times as liberals are telling us we need to do.

All Reagan did was take his case to the voters, and they forced those same Republicans who laughed at Reagan (and the Dems) to accept his principals and policies

The door is wide open right now for conservative Republicans to walk right thru. Unemployment will continue to rise, and the so called stimulus bill will do little except increase the debt

Was Reagan perfect - no. No politican is. What we need is someone who can explain those princiapals, those ideas, and offer the voters a clear choice and alternative

While I would not want anyone tossed aside for disagreeing in part Kathy, the party does not ned the likes of a Snowe, Collins, or McCain who say we need to change our basic prinipcals and foundations of our core beliefs

After the 1994 midterm, or the 2000 election I never heard a single Democrat say the Dem party needed to move away from FDR liberalism or FDR big government

[Kathianne]

and Pres Regan was wrong to grant amnesty. He gave amnesty to whaty a few million - and now Dems want to grant it to about 15 million? You do not reward bad behaviour Kat

The tax cuts were not for the rich Kathy - they were for anyone who paid income taxes. Like with Dems, McCain ignored a simple fact. If you pay more in taxes in the first place - you get a bigger tax cut then those who do not pay as much

The basic principals of Reagan conservatism are the solutions to the issues the nation is facing

Ronald Reagan was laughed at, smeared, and attacked by not only the left but Republicans as well in the mid 70's. He ignored it and went on to educate and promoted his ideas Kathy. He did not change with the times as liberals are telling us we need to do.

All Reagan did was take his case to the voters, and they forced those same Republicans who laughed at Reagan (and the Dems) to accept his principals and policies

The door is wide open right now for conservative Republicans to walk right thru. Unemployment will continue to rise, and the so called stimulus bill will do little except increase the debt

Was Reagan perfect - no. No politican is. What we need is someone who can explain those princiapals, those ideas, and offer the voters a clear choice and alternative

While I would not want anyone tossed aside for disagreeing in part Kathy, the party does not ned the likes of a Snowe, Collins, or McCain who say we need to change our basic prinipcals and foundations of our core beliefs

After the 1994 midterm, or the 2000 election I never heard a single Democrat say the Dem party needed to move away from FDR liberalism or FDR big government

Please don't 'lecture' me by name over and over again. Thanks. Looking at the last paragraph, seems you wish to be an invert of the DNC, which in a way mirrors what the RNC tried to do for years, then tried to come out with FDR lite-quite inverting their previous way of approaching the problem.

My time for discussing a party that no longer exists in principle with my own is coming to an end. Those that want the Republican Party to be what THEY want, all others hit the door will not work, but I guess provides succor for those that feel the need to hear themselves over and over again. There's a reason that the numbers of self-identified Republicans is dropping, with their loss being picked up in the independent numbers-not Democrat. What so many that are calling themselves 'Republican conservatives' are really pining after is what the Democrats think they've realized, 'control.' My guess is it will work out as badly for those now in 'control' and rolling over others as it did for the Republicans in the last swing of the pendulum.

I'll continue to look for those that want to slash government in size and costs. Address the deficits and security issues that confront our country. No matter how we long for isolationism, that isn't going to happen for any length of time and if really was implemented would lead to the same results of the 1930's. People are going to be angry when they realize these new auto bailouts have left the unions more powerful, the TARP banks more powerful than non-TARP investors, and the US taxpayer screwed over the most.

Indeed the situation is turning ripe for some extreme form of government, I'm hoping some common sense rears its head. Doesn't seem to be coming from the extremes of either of our two long lived parties.

[red states rule]

Please don't 'lecture' me by name over and over again. Thanks. Looking at the last paragraph, seems you wish to be an invert of the DNC, which in a way mirrors what the RNC tried to do for years, then tried to come out with FDR lite-quite inverting their previous way of approaching the problem.

My time for discussing a party that no longer exists in principle with my own is coming to an end. Those that want the Republican Party to be what THEY want, all others hit the door will not work, but I guess provides succor for those that feel the need to hear themselves over and over again. There's a reason that the numbers of self-identified Republicans is dropping, with their loss being picked up in the independent numbers-not Democrat. What so many that are calling themselves 'Republican conservatives' are really pining after is what the Democrats think they've realized, 'control.' My guess is it will work out as badly for those now in 'control' and rolling over others as it did for the Republicans in the last swing of the pendulum.

I'll continue to look for those that want to slash government in size and costs. Address the deficits and security issues that confront our country. No matter how we long for isolationism, that isn't going to happen for any length of time and if really was implemented would lead to the same results of the 1930's. People are going to be angry when they realize these new auto bailouts have left the unions more powerful, the TARP banks more powerful than non-TARP investors, and the US taxpayer screwed over the most.

Indeed the situation is turning ripe for some extreme form of government, I'm hoping some common sense rears its head. Doesn't seem to be coming from the extremes of either of our two long lived parties.

Not lecturing you at all - just pointing out one of the main differences between the parties

There are basic core principals and beliefs that are not - and should not be up for debate. If they are, how can voters tell one party from the other?

It is clear the Obama economic plan if failing. Not one House Republican voted for his "stimulus" bill and only 3 "Republicans" in the Senate voted for it. Now that Dems have 60 votes in the Senate, it is possible all the Republicans can do is voice their plans and point out the failures. But they must step up and offer detailed alternatives. I am still waiting for them to do so

[Kathianne]

Not lecturing you at all - just pointing out one of the main differences between the parties

There are basic core principals and beliefs that are not - and should not be up for debate. If they are, how can voters tell one party from the other?

It is clear the Obama economic plan if failing. Not one House Republican voted for his "stimulus" bill and only 3 "Republicans" in the Senate voted for it. Now that Dems have 60 votes in the Senate, it is possible all the Republicans can do is voice their plans and point out the failures. But they must step up and offer detailed alternatives. I am still waiting for them to do so

Ah, now you are agreeing with me, that is nice. ;)


Regarding 'conservatives' however, they need to come up with alternatives to what the Democrats are very actively working towards and likely to implement. Once those alternatives are able to be vocalized they must be, with vigor. At the same time, the reasons the 'new policies' of the Democrats will prove disastrous in the long haul must be be articulated often and loudly, examples of how they will hit various demographic groups must be repeated, often.

The values held must be put in any platform, but that does not preclude those who wish to fall under the tent, while disagreeing with some from being with us. To alienate any who disagree in part, well that is the way of never winning. That is what to many of the social conservatives want to do.

[red states rule]

Ah, now you are agreeing with me, that is nice. ;)

That is what I have been saying all along - maybe not clearly enough. We do not need people like McCain and others selling us out and providing the deciding votes for things like the mega pork bill which make things much worse

[mundame]

There's a reason that the numbers of self-identified Republicans is dropping, with their loss being picked up in the independent numbers-not Democrat.


Sure. That's what I did, reregistered Independent, and I sure surprised myself, after being a Republican all those decades. But it just became untenable -- the long and lost wars, the torture, Bush's general incompetence -- then the Dems turned out to be just as bad, so the heck with it.


What so many that are calling themselves 'Republican conservatives' are really pining after is what the Democrats think they've realized, 'control.' My guess is it will work out as badly for those now in 'control' and rolling over others as it did for the Republicans in the last swing of the pendulum.


Good point. Control, control, control. To be fair, we have more heterogeneity in this nation that any nation CAN have and hold together. Nationstates MUST have homogeneity or they don't survive: that was Wilson's idea about organizing people's as independent nations after WWI, when all the (inclusive) empires broke up.

He was right, IMO. We're way too diverse to hold together now, IMO.




Indeed the situation is turning ripe for some extreme form of government, I'm hoping some common sense rears its head. Doesn't seem to be coming from the extremes of either of our two long lived parties.

That's what I think, too, as I'm saying above. Extreme repression or breakup; I'm expecting change at this point. That's normal, of course; we've fended off breakup longer than usual, some 140 years! An unusually long run between revolutions and territory reorganizations for any landmass, especially one as large as this. The only ones comparable are Russia and China, and they've been through a LOT of big changes and breakups in that time.

Yeah, yeah ---- it can't happen here, I know.


Until it does. Then everyone says, Oh, I saw it coming all along!

[red states rule]

It really is that simple. Being "Liberal Lite" doesn't serve the Republican party at all.

The left foes have their "Great Communicator" now. Although I seriously doubt that Obamar could ever unite the country like Pres Reagan did.

[Agnapostate]

No wonder you're confused, having bought into the "swapping" theory so elemental to the Liberal Democrat re-education manual.

Why would a political party suddenly "swap" political philosophy after being founded on a philosophy of civil rights, free market economics and federal adherence to limited Constitutional power, even going to war against the Democrat Party? And in 2009 it still claims to be for its founding principles?

I thought you were smarter than that; shame on me.

You don't seem to be especially historically aware. The Democrats were long rendered the more "conservative" party by their racist base in the South, whereas the Republicans were effectively the more "progressive" party. With the crumbling of the Dixiecrat lobby near the end of the civil rights movement, the segregationist element (most notably Strom Thurmond), assimilated into the Republican Party to some degree. Ultimately, I'm not of the opinion that the Democrats and Republicans function as much more than two factions of one party, but there are minor ideological differences.

[mundame]

Ultimately, I'm not of the opinion that the Democrats and Republicans function as much more than two factions of one party, but there are minor ideological differences.


There used to be. Much of the voter discomfort this past election was due to the Bush administration pretty much erasing all the differences. And the GOP candidate John McCain disavowed the rest of traditional Republican principles, like border security. So there really wasn't anyone left to vote for.

[Agnapostate]

There used to be. Much of the voter discomfort this past election was due to the Bush administration pretty much erasing all the differences. And the GOP candidate John McCain disavowed the rest of traditional Republican principles, like border security. So there really wasn't anyone left to vote for.

Considering the role of trade liberalization (and therefore extension into foreign countries), in promoting destabilization of the Mexican working class, and the wasteful inefficiency of "border security" in deterring immigration, you've just highlighted another element of the Republican platform in contradiction with "small government" principles.

But that wasn't even my point. The Democrats and Republicans are roughly aligned with Anglo-Saxon capitalism and liberal democratic capitalism, thereby preventing the establishment of a viable social democratic party, let alone a socialist one, for instance. This is a reality starkly different from the political situations of most other liberal democracies, and has the result of encouraging ideological stagnation.

[mundame]

The Democrats and Republicans are roughly aligned with Anglo-Saxon capitalism and liberal democratic capitalism, thereby preventing the establishment of a viable social democratic party, let alone a socialist one, for instance. This is a reality starkly different from the political situations of most other liberal democracies, and has the result of encouraging ideological stagnation.


Well, that's something to be said for them, anyway, then. The only optimistic point I've heard about the Dems and Gopers lately.

[Agnapostate]

Well, that's something to be said for them, anyway, then. The only optimistic point I've heard about the Dems and Gopers lately.

Yeah, I can see how you'd be into ideological stagnation on a large scale. ;)

[mundame]

Yeah, I can see how you'd be into ideological stagnation on a large scale. ;)


I'd like to see a new party replace one of these old ones. However, far, far better ideological stagnation than communism/socialism/anarchism! And I don't think any part of the country would put up with that, so that's all right.

[Kathianne]

That is what I have been saying all along - maybe not clearly enough. We do not need people like McCain and others selling us out and providing the deciding votes for things like the mega pork bill which make things much worse

No. It wasn't. I was never advocating getting rid of McCain and his ilk. Any more than getting rid of the far right. It's you ilk trying to kill anyone who doesn't agree with your vision of the 'conservative' stance, which is nonsense.

[Psychoblues]

Whatever gave you the idea the shithead might agree, Kat?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?


No. It wasn't. I was never advocating getting rid of McCain and his ilk. Any more than getting rid of the far right. It's you ilk trying to kill anyone who doesn't agree with your vision of the 'conservative' stance, which is nonsense.

[Agnapostate]

I'd like to see a new party replace one of these old ones. However, far, far better ideological stagnation than communism/socialism/anarchism! And I don't think any part of the country would put up with that, so that's all right.

If not, it's because of the misconception promoted by rightists of state capitalism constituting a form of socialism. The democratic impulse is a very fundamental one; the drive to govern oneself seems a critical element of human nature. The state and capitalism generate authoritarian social relations which deprive individuals of these basic rights; it is therefore not implausible that they would desire removal of such institutions. It's merely obfuscation promoted by the monopoly that reactionary ideology (much of it designed to appease worker militancy), has on the political system that prevents this from being more widely realized.

[Psychoblues]

Any specific reason for the editting, kitty?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?! Care to share?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!
4

[red states rule]

No. It wasn't. I was never advocating getting rid of McCain and his ilk. Any more than getting rid of the far right. It's you ilk trying to kill anyone who doesn't agree with your vision of the 'conservative' stance, which is nonsense.

My "ilk" is trying to "kill" anyone who does not agree with "my" vision of conservatism?

OK, Kat show where Reagan conservatism would call for $1 trillion in pork to stimulate the economy? That vote is what destroyed Spector and he said he would not allow Republicans in PA to decide the Republican primary

As a Republican I bet you feel great while watching all the times McCain was on TV standing with Ted Kennedy, Reid, and Chucky Schumer after he voted with them. I guess you thought how great "bipartisanship" is

I am happy Spector made it offical, and now we will see if the other RINO's will make it official. So I guess you feel my "iilk" should keep quiet about the RINO's and just try to "get along"

[glockmail]

You don't seem to be especially historically aware. The Democrats were long rendered the more "conservative" party by their racist base in the South, whereas the Republicans were effectively the more "progressive" party. With the crumbling of the Dixiecrat lobby near the end of the civil rights movement, the segregationist element (most notably Strom Thurmond), assimilated into the Republican Party to some degree. Ultimately, I'm not of the opinion that the Democrats and Republicans function as much more than two factions of one party, but there are minor ideological differences.I am perfectly aware that the definitions of progressive and conservative with respect to political ideology changed over time. I'm also aware that you avoided my question.

[red states rule]

If it is such a good thing to have a mix within the party, why are both Democrats and Republicans running away from them?

The Dems are always upset with the so called "blue dog Dems" within the party, as with Lieberman; or those like Heath Schuler who speak out against the Obama deficits

Dems tell us they are a party of different view points, and welcome different opinions. Yet during the election they dumped moderate Hillary Clinton, and went with a hard core tax and spend liberal

Yet when the GOP tries to go back to its conservative roots, it is considered radical, far right, mean spirited, and out of date.

The fact is moderate is just another term for a politician that can't make up his or her mind on anything. They are unable to make hard choices, and do not want to offend anyone

We have a term for this in our daily lives away from Washington, its called a whimp, wussy, and fraud

[Agnapostate]

I am perfectly aware that the definitions of progressive and conservative with respect to political ideology changed over time. I'm also aware that you avoided my question.

And yet my comment contains arguments and valid insights, whereas yours does not. It somewhat reminds me of the time when I presented evidence that the modern Bible was corrupted and sometimes deliberately altered by scribes and you insisted that this was not true without offering contrary evidence, because you've maintained both your hostility to empirical analysis and your historical unawareness. :salute:

[glockmail]

And yet my comment contains arguments and valid insights, whereas yours does not. It somewhat reminds me of the time when I presented evidence that the modern Bible was corrupted and sometimes deliberately altered by scribes and you insisted that this was not true without offering contrary evidence, because you've maintained both your hostility to empirical analysis and your historical unawareness. :salute:More artful avoidance of my question.

[Agnapostate]

More artful avoidance of my question.

Artful avoidance? The shift in political ideology by the respective parties in question has already been mentioned with no rebuttal from you.

[glockmail]

Artful avoidance? The shift in political ideology by the respective parties in question has already been mentioned with no rebuttal from you.
Post 51, middle paragraph.

[Kathianne]

Not lecturing you at all - just pointing out one of the main differences between the parties

There are basic core principals and beliefs that are not - and should not be up for debate. If they are, how can voters tell one party from the other?

It is clear the Obama economic plan if failing. Not one House Republican voted for his "stimulus" bill and only 3 "Republicans" in the Senate voted for it. Now that Dems have 60 votes in the Senate, it is possible all the Republicans can do is voice their plans and point out the failures. But they must step up and offer detailed alternatives. I am still waiting for them to do so

It's depressing how little real difference there is between the parties and those wedded to the parties refuse to see it. Here is just one more, important example:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124173977440798743.html


Republicans and ObamaCare
The sound of silence is deafening.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Listen. That sound of silence? That's what's known as the united Republican response to President Barack Obama's drive to socialize health care.

The president has a plan, and he's laid it on the table. The industry groups that once helped Republicans beat HillaryCare are today sitting at that table. Unions are mobilized. A liberal umbrella group, Health Care for American Now, is spending $40 million to get a "public option," a new federal entitlement that would kill off private insurance. Democrats passed a budget blueprint that will allow them to cram through that "public option" with just 51 votes.

Republicans? They're trying to figure out what they think.

Well, not all of them. Earlier this week I ended up in the office of Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, where the doctor was hosting North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr. The duo is, for the second time, crafting a comprehensive reform that would lower costs, cover the uninsured, and put Americans in control of their health care. And while the senators decline to talk GOP politics, their bill raises the multitrillion-dollar question: Will the party have the nerve or sense to coalesce behind some such conservative alternative to the Democratic product?

They'd better, because the days of Republicans winning these battles solely by spooking Americans are over. Phil Gramm, Harry and Louise might have scored with that approach in the 1990s, but the intervening years have brought spiraling costs and public unrest. Americans want a fix. Democrats promise one. The GOP can't tank the public option simply by complaining it will kill private insurance. The party has to finally elucidate how it plans to allow the private market to work.

Not that the senators don't think Republicans need to make clear to the country that the public option is, in Mr. Burr's words, "a fast track to a single-payer system." But they are also operating on the belief that Republicans must go beyond Band-Aid solutions to embrace, as Mr. Coburn puts it, a "complete transformation" of a system that is "structurally" flawed....

...Yet no small number of Senate Republicans are biding their time in Max Baucus land, waiting to see what the Democratic finance chairman produces as a "bipartisan" product. (Read: A bill the president wants.) This crowd has taken to heart Mr. Obama's accusation that they are the party of "no," and think it might be easier to be the party of Baucus, or the party of Baucus-lite, or the party of nothing whatsoever.

The White House is targeting folks like Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch and other Senate Republicans who back in 1997 voted for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which was pitched by Democrats at the time as a modest program to help poor kids. It has, of course, become exactly what Democrats always intended it to be: a ballooning federal entitlement that is today transferring middle-class children from private insurance onto the federal rolls. This might be thought of as a teachable moment. But now Republican "moderates" are all ears for the administration's soothing suggestions that perhaps the "public option" can be "structured" so as to protect private insurance. Uh-huh....

[red states rule]

It's depressing how little real difference there is between the parties and those wedded to the parties refuse to see it. Here is just one more, important example:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124173977440798743.html

So now the Republicans are agreeing with the Dems that government run health care is needed - not just as big as Dems want

WTF????

I agree - this is insane

[Agnapostate]

Post 51, middle paragraph.

Not familiar with a fellow called Goldwater? It's certainly not my fault if some are utterly oblivious to the anti-conservatism of the Republicans.

[PostmodernProphet]

It somewhat reminds me of the time when I presented evidence that the modern Bible was corrupted and sometimes deliberately altered by scribes

in which thread did you attempt that foolishness....I'm sorry I missed it.....

[glockmail]

Not familiar with a fellow called Goldwater? It's certainly not my fault if some are utterly oblivious to the anti-conservatism of the Republicans.
I am very familiar with him. Apparently you are not.

[Agnapostate]

in which thread did you attempt that foolishness....I'm sorry I missed it.....

Not here and not foolishness. Merely consult John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, and a portion of 1 John 5:7-8. The last is especially significant because no other portion of the New Testament expresses support for the doctrine of the Trinity so openly.

Having been acquainted with your hatred of empirical evidence, I doubt that you'll care that these passages were absent in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, of course. ;)


I am very familiar with him. Apparently you are not.

Apparently you're not, good sir. If you were, you wouldn't be maintaining a line of consistent party philosophy.

[glockmail]

Apparently you're not, good sir. If you were, you wouldn't be maintaining a line of consistent party philosophy.What are you inferring?

[Agnapostate]

What are you inferring?

Inferring? Nothing is being inferred. The reality of the GOP's shifts in party philosophy over the years is being frankly stated, and the arrival and departure of several figures with strong ideological views is a very obvious way of illustrating that reality.

[glockmail]

Inferring? Nothing is being inferred. The reality of the GOP's shifts in party philosophy over the years is being frankly stated, and the arrival and departure of several figures with strong ideological views is a very obvious way of illustrating that reality.Goldwater's philosophy was Conservative, which is the same as mine. The GOP has occasional bouts with conservatism- a fact well known.

[Agnapostate]

Goldwater's philosophy was Conservative, which is the same as mine. The GOP has occasional bouts with conservatism- a fact well known.

Occasional bouts? The unchecked supremacy of neoconservative interventionism and the Christian Right (which you're apparently unfamiliar with), in that party doesn't constitute an "occasional bout" with conservatism; it constitutes a sharp divergence from it.

[glockmail]

Occasional bouts? The unchecked supremacy of neoconservative interventionism and the Christian Right (which you're apparently unfamiliar with), in that party doesn't constitute an "occasional bout" with conservatism; it constitutes a sharp divergence from it. Of course I'm talking historically. The fact that the GOP has been ignoring its conservative wing is why they've been losing elections lately.

[Agnapostate]

Of course I'm talking historically. The fact that the GOP has been ignoring its conservative wing is why they've been losing elections lately.

So am I. And the shift in ideology in the two major parties (as illustrated by Thurmond's jumping from the Democrats once the Dixiecrat wing was exiled altogether), is a historical reality.