Even Conservatives Are Wondering: Is Bush One of Us?

[Zebo]

Great read as usual from the nation. This is what preturbs me so much about these neo-cons. I have no problem with a small governemnt and limited handouts philosophy but when they cut to the poorest and on the other hand give to the richest who need it least all while growing the governemnt and putting the screws to middle class just stikes me as bit disingenuous and patently unjust.

Indeed, for Pentagon contractors like Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, the era of big government is not over--it's never been more firmly entrenched. The same goes for the sugar, grain and cotton producers whose subsidies the Administration has assiduously protected, as well as the oil, gas and coal industries. The pattern has not escaped the notice of some conservatives, whose anger at Bush's profligate spending and disregard for free-market principles is growing. "This Administration has not been for small government at all," says Veronique de Rugy, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "It's a big spending administration. Just look at the farm bill, which is pure corporate welfare. Bush's farm bill actually moved against the one signed by Clinton [in 1996], which at least tried to cut down some of the subsidies. It goes against every market principle you can imagine."

Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute has described the Administration's energy plan in much the same way: "three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics...a smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in Washington." McCain, whom the hard right views as a traitor to the movement, has proposed establishing a corporate welfare termination commission that would identify and eliminate tax breaks and subsidies handed out annually to the private sector. It's the sort of thing you would think an administration committed to the notion of laissez-faire economics (not to mention the virtue of self-reliance, preached incessantly to the poor) would rush to embrace, but of course, it hasn't.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040531&c=1&s=press

 

[Infohawk]

Fiscal conservatives will vote for Kerry over Bush if they are smart. The Congress will probably stay Republican. With a Republican Congress, there's not much Kerry can do in terms of hurting businesses and such. (There's also a good argument he would not hurt them even if there was a Democratic Congress). On the other hand, you have a Christian fundamentalist who is increasing global instability. War is bad for business. The money going towards the war would better help business by going towards are crumbling infrastructure and educational system.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Fiscal conservatives will vote for Kerry over Bush if they are smart. The Congress will probably stay Republican. With a Republican Congress, there's not much Kerry can do in terms of hurting businesses and such. (There's also a good argument he would not hurt them even if there was a Democratic Congress). On the other hand, you have a Christian fundamentalist who is increasing global instability. War is bad for business. The money going towards the war would better help business by going towards are crumbling infrastructure and educational system.

im not so sure throwing more money at our terrible education system will help matters. it hasnt in the past, and if the past is indicative of the future, it still wont help. what needs to happen is a whole system wide reform and standardization of our education system.

 

[conjur]

As long as NCLB is federally mandated, more money is REQUIRED in order to have a chance.

 

[Zebo]

Bump in the moning/ Any conservatives left?

 

[Codec]

There are plenty of conservatives left. I think what we will see in the future is a major reshuffling within the Republican party, a change of the guard as the fallout from the Bush admin continues.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Codec
There are plenty of conservatives left. I think what we will see in the future is a major reshuffling within the Republican party, a change of the guard as the fallout from the Bush admin continues.

Actually there won't be a "change of the guard" for the Republican side. Yes, IF(hell froze over) and Bush somehow lost - he would be replaced - but that certainly wouldn't change the party nor would it change what a Conservative is.
However, if kerry doesn't win there will be tremendous fall out from that. You might want to read "The politics of Evasion" It's out there on the web and there is a follow up document too("The politics of Evasion revisited" or something to that effect). Anyway the Republicans are in no danger of falling apart. They have a core base and ideals, but the Democrat side has known for years that it's patchwork of small issue supporters was coming apart at the seems. Clinton seemed the put a band-aid on them and held it together for 8 years but since that time the seams are back to becoming frayed. The democrats will lose more Senate and House seats this time around. which will strengthen the collective power of the Republican party - regardless of how the Presidential election turns out.
There are plenty of good things to read on this subject but start with The politics of Evasion - written by the DLC.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Codec
There are plenty of conservatives left. I think what we will see in the future is a major reshuffling within the Republican party, a change of the guard as the fallout from the Bush admin continues.

Actually there won't be a "change of the guard" for the Republican side. Yes, IF(hell froze over) and Bush somehow lost - he would be replaced - but that certainly wouldn't change the party

Sadly, I am afraid you're right. The Republican Party has been hijacked by an unholy alliance of neo-fascists and religious extremists. Neither group is willing to put their own interests below the greater interests of America. When Bush loses, they will ensure he is replaced with another compliant figurehead.

nor would it change what a Conservative is. ...

... which has less and less to do with the Republican Party's actions. The Republicans still talk a good Conservative game, but their elected representatives do little to match words with actions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Codec
There are plenty of conservatives left. I think what we will see in the future is a major reshuffling within the Republican party, a change of the guard as the fallout from the Bush admin continues.

Actually there won't be a "change of the guard" for the Republican side. Yes, IF(hell froze over) and Bush somehow lost - he would be replaced - but that certainly wouldn't change the party

Sadly, I am afraid you're right. The Republican Party has been hijacked by an unholy alliance of neo-fascists and religious extremists. Neither group is willing to put their own interests below the greater interests of America. When Bush loses, they will ensure he is replaced with another compliant figurehead.

nor would it change what a Conservative is. ...

... which has less and less to do with the Republican Party's actions. The Republicans still talk a good Conservative game, but their elected representatives do little to match words with actions.

That may be, but there is a large contingent within the Republican party who are Conservative and really do wish to have smaller gov't and other "traditional" Conservative ideals instead of compromising on their ideals.
It's just the opposite of what the democrats have been doing. They thing continuing to compromise their ideals to keep their patchwork together is the answer - but it will be their eventual undoing. There will be a political split in the near future I am afraid - but it won't be a Republican split. Just wait for the democrat version of Perot next election(2008) No, not Nader or some other fringe freak - I'm talking a rogue democrat turned off by the democrat's internal structure - especially if Hillary runs.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That may be, but there is a large contingent within the Republican party who are Conservative and really do wish to have smaller gov't and other "traditional" Conservative ideals instead of compromising on their ideals.

I agree, but they lost control of the party many years ago. Their influence is declining. Somewhere along the line, they have a decision to make. Do they continue to support a party that does not represent their beliefs, do they unite to take the party back, or do they break off and form a new Conservative party? As long as they rubber-stamp pseudo-conservatives like Bush, their ideals will receive only lip service.

It's just the opposite of what the democrats have been doing. They thing continuing to compromise their ideals to keep their patchwork together is the answer - but it will be their eventual undoing. There will be a political split in the near future I am afraid - but it won't be a Republican split. Just wait for the democrat version of Perot next election(2008) No, not Nader or some other fringe freak - I'm talking a rogue democrat turned off by the democrat's internal structure - especially if Hillary runs.

CkG

Perhaps, but that's wishful thinking at best. After watching Meet the Press this morning, I'd love to see a new Unity Party composed of people like Biden and McCain. I think they could pull from both camps.

Ultimately, I'd love to see the United States have half-a-dozen viable political parties, forcing an ever-shifting set of alliances to break up the status quo. Of course I'd also like to see a well-informed electorate. I don't expect that to happen either.

 

[Zebo]

Ya Ya CAD Democratic Leadership Counsel, the corporate Democrats, The Republican wing of the Democratic Party who has thier hands out and home phone number to every lobbiest in Washington. Needless to say I take everything they say with a truckload of sodium chloride.

It's a party that is selling itself to the same corporate interests that the Republican Party's been selling themselves to don't you see it? Read that Nation article it goes into detail with even Repulicans saying the poor and middle-class are gettig the shaft while wallstreet gets over market value for it's warez and more of it and more welfare.

Everything has gone up while poor and middle-class benis form the USGov are slashed. Sales taxes, property tax, excise tax, gasoline tax, state tax, building "fees", and so on. Sure I got a measly 2-3% federal tax cut this year but it pails in comparison to the 20,000 per house school bond building fee. What the hell are we paying for? I don't see any of it do you?

Meanwhile when's the last time you saw a true constitionalist republican? Or a real genuine Pro gun one? Or a small government one? This war in Iraq GROWS the size and power of the federal government and these changes will be permanent as the 10 round magazine limits on hand guns.

Daris right in that other thread (smartest thing I've ever seen him say)

"Whether Bush or Kerry resides in the White House, do you think that changes anything? Unless Kerry wants to go the way of Kennedy if he is elected, we will see bigger government (epsceially on security), more burden on the middle and lower classes, and more innovative ways to distance the population from the halls of power. "

 

[Zebo]

religious extremists all vote bow. And they all vote Bush. VERY powerful ally of the republicans.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Ya Ya CAD Democratic Leadership Counsel, the corporate Democrats, The Republican wing of the Democratic Party who has thier hands out and home phone number to every lobbiest in Washington. Needless to say I take everything they say with a truckload of sodium chloride.

Yes, but didn't what they conclude in their report ultimately come true? Have you read what they wrote and then revisited?
Also, Bill Clinton was the "Republican wing of the Democratic Party"?

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That may be, but there is a large contingent within the Republican party who are Conservative and really do wish to have smaller gov't and other "traditional" Conservative ideals instead of compromising on their ideals.

I agree, but they lost control of the party many years ago. Their influence is declining. Somewhere along the line, they have a decision to make. Do they continue to support a party that does not represent their beliefs, do they unite to take the party back, or do they break off and form a new Conservative party? As long as they rubber-stamp pseudo-conservatives like Bush, their ideals will receive only lip service.

It's just the opposite of what the democrats have been doing. They thing continuing to compromise their ideals to keep their patchwork together is the answer - but it will be their eventual undoing. There will be a political split in the near future I am afraid - but it won't be a Republican split. Just wait for the democrat version of Perot next election(2008) No, not Nader or some other fringe freak - I'm talking a rogue democrat turned off by the democrat's internal structure - especially if Hillary runs.

CkG

Perhaps, but that's wishful thinking at best. After watching Meet the Press this morning, I'd love to see a new Unity Party composed of people like Biden and McCain. I think they could pull from both camps.

Ultimately, I'd love to see the United States have half-a-dozen viable political parties, forcing an ever-shifting set of alliances to break up the status quo. Of course I'd also like to see a well-informed electorate. I don't expect that to happen either.

No, Conservatives haven't lost their control over the party nor is their influence declining. THAT would be wishful thinking on your part. Like I said before- some thought they had to compromise their ideals so as to gain power for the party. Many of those have seen the err of their ways and are regaining their ideological hold. There is no "take the party back" issue here like there is on the democrat's side. dean ring a bell? democratic wing of the democrat party? The patchwork is falling apart and dean wanted to grab hold of the biggest piece of the cloth. Unfortunately the fringe groups would have been torn away by doing so. kerry is trying to present himself as a band-aid like clinton was. The problem with that is that he isn't clinton even though he is trying hard to be him.

This whole drool fest over McCain is quite funny though. Yes, he's a "maverick" of sorts but he supports Bush - something the left seems seems to want to do anything but do. Anyway, the idea of a "unity" party is nice and all but it as you say is "wishful thinking at best". There are ideological lines and some aren't and shouldn't be compromised on.

Maybe we do need a bunch of smaller parties but they'd just form aliances and we'd be back in this same position.

CkG

 

[AcidicFury]

Bush is a Neo-Con, not a regualr conservative. Read George Will. He is a conservative but now hates Bush.

 

[conjur]

That's quite a stretch that Will hates Bush. He's certainly not happy with Bush's policies but I wouldn't say he hates him.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That may be, but there is a large contingent within the Republican party who are Conservative and really do wish to have smaller gov't and other "traditional" Conservative ideals instead of compromising on their ideals.

I agree, but they lost control of the party many years ago. Their influence is declining. Somewhere along the line, they have a decision to make. Do they continue to support a party that does not represent their beliefs, do they unite to take the party back, or do they break off and form a new Conservative party? As long as they rubber-stamp pseudo-conservatives like Bush, their ideals will receive only lip service.

It's just the opposite of what the democrats have been doing. They thing continuing to compromise their ideals to keep their patchwork together is the answer - but it will be their eventual undoing. There will be a political split in the near future I am afraid - but it won't be a Republican split. Just wait for the democrat version of Perot next election(2008) No, not Nader or some other fringe freak - I'm talking a rogue democrat turned off by the democrat's internal structure - especially if Hillary runs.

CkG

Perhaps, but that's wishful thinking at best. After watching Meet the Press this morning, I'd love to see a new Unity Party composed of people like Biden and McCain. I think they could pull from both camps.

Ultimately, I'd love to see the United States have half-a-dozen viable political parties, forcing an ever-shifting set of alliances to break up the status quo. Of course I'd also like to see a well-informed electorate. I don't expect that to happen either.

No, Conservatives haven't lost their control over the party nor is their influence declining. THAT would be wishful thinking on your part. Like I said before- some thought they had to compromise their ideals so as to gain power for the party. Many of those have seen the err of their ways and are regaining their ideological hold. There is no "take the party back" issue here like there is on the democrat's side. dean ring a bell? democratic wing of the democrat party? The patchwork is falling apart and dean wanted to grab hold of the biggest piece of the cloth. Unfortunately the fringe groups would have been torn away by doing so. kerry is trying to present himself as a band-aid like clinton was. The problem with that is that he isn't clinton even though he is trying hard to be him.

This whole drool fest over McCain is quite funny though. Yes, he's a "maverick" of sorts but he supports Bush - something the left seems seems to want to do anything but do. Anyway, the idea of a "unity" party is nice and all but it as you say is "wishful thinking at best". There are ideological lines and some aren't and shouldn't be compromised on.

Maybe we do need a bunch of smaller parties but they'd just form aliances and we'd be back in this same position.

CkG

Clearly the conservatives are in control of the repbulician party that is why they "fixed" medicad/SS by adding benifits and about 500 billion dollars of spending.

I bet for every bill you can find that the "conservatives" have passed there are 10 that increase the size of the fedral goverment.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That may be, but there is a large contingent within the Republican party who are Conservative and really do wish to have smaller gov't and other "traditional" Conservative ideals instead of compromising on their ideals.

I agree, but they lost control of the party many years ago. Their influence is declining. Somewhere along the line, they have a decision to make. Do they continue to support a party that does not represent their beliefs, do they unite to take the party back, or do they break off and form a new Conservative party? As long as they rubber-stamp pseudo-conservatives like Bush, their ideals will receive only lip service.

It's just the opposite of what the democrats have been doing. They thing continuing to compromise their ideals to keep their patchwork together is the answer - but it will be their eventual undoing. There will be a political split in the near future I am afraid - but it won't be a Republican split. Just wait for the democrat version of Perot next election(2008) No, not Nader or some other fringe freak - I'm talking a rogue democrat turned off by the democrat's internal structure - especially if Hillary runs.

CkG

Perhaps, but that's wishful thinking at best. After watching Meet the Press this morning, I'd love to see a new Unity Party composed of people like Biden and McCain. I think they could pull from both camps.

Ultimately, I'd love to see the United States have half-a-dozen viable political parties, forcing an ever-shifting set of alliances to break up the status quo. Of course I'd also like to see a well-informed electorate. I don't expect that to happen either.

No, Conservatives haven't lost their control over the party nor is their influence declining. THAT would be wishful thinking on your part. Like I said before- some thought they had to compromise their ideals so as to gain power for the party. Many of those have seen the err of their ways and are regaining their ideological hold. There is no "take the party back" issue here like there is on the democrat's side. dean ring a bell? democratic wing of the democrat party? The patchwork is falling apart and dean wanted to grab hold of the biggest piece of the cloth. Unfortunately the fringe groups would have been torn away by doing so. kerry is trying to present himself as a band-aid like clinton was. The problem with that is that he isn't clinton even though he is trying hard to be him.

This whole drool fest over McCain is quite funny though. Yes, he's a "maverick" of sorts but he supports Bush - something the left seems seems to want to do anything but do. Anyway, the idea of a "unity" party is nice and all but it as you say is "wishful thinking at best". There are ideological lines and some aren't and shouldn't be compromised on.

Maybe we do need a bunch of smaller parties but they'd just form aliances and we'd be back in this same position.

CkG

Clearly the conservatives are in control of the repbulician party that is why they "fixed" medicad/SS by adding benifits and about 500 billion dollars of spending.

I bet for every bill you can find that the "conservatives" have passed there are 10 that increase the size of the fedral goverment.

And the liberals still complain that 500B was not enough. Seems they would have complained if he would have done nothing at all...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That may be, but there is a large contingent within the Republican party who are Conservative and really do wish to have smaller gov't and other "traditional" Conservative ideals instead of compromising on their ideals.

I agree, but they lost control of the party many years ago. Their influence is declining. Somewhere along the line, they have a decision to make. Do they continue to support a party that does not represent their beliefs, do they unite to take the party back, or do they break off and form a new Conservative party? As long as they rubber-stamp pseudo-conservatives like Bush, their ideals will receive only lip service.

It's just the opposite of what the democrats have been doing. They thing continuing to compromise their ideals to keep their patchwork together is the answer - but it will be their eventual undoing. There will be a political split in the near future I am afraid - but it won't be a Republican split. Just wait for the democrat version of Perot next election(2008) No, not Nader or some other fringe freak - I'm talking a rogue democrat turned off by the democrat's internal structure - especially if Hillary runs.

CkG

Perhaps, but that's wishful thinking at best. After watching Meet the Press this morning, I'd love to see a new Unity Party composed of people like Biden and McCain. I think they could pull from both camps.

Ultimately, I'd love to see the United States have half-a-dozen viable political parties, forcing an ever-shifting set of alliances to break up the status quo. Of course I'd also like to see a well-informed electorate. I don't expect that to happen either.

No, Conservatives haven't lost their control over the party nor is their influence declining. THAT would be wishful thinking on your part. Like I said before- some thought they had to compromise their ideals so as to gain power for the party. Many of those have seen the err of their ways and are regaining their ideological hold. There is no "take the party back" issue here like there is on the democrat's side. dean ring a bell? democratic wing of the democrat party? The patchwork is falling apart and dean wanted to grab hold of the biggest piece of the cloth. Unfortunately the fringe groups would have been torn away by doing so. kerry is trying to present himself as a band-aid like clinton was. The problem with that is that he isn't clinton even though he is trying hard to be him.

This whole drool fest over McCain is quite funny though. Yes, he's a "maverick" of sorts but he supports Bush - something the left seems seems to want to do anything but do. Anyway, the idea of a "unity" party is nice and all but it as you say is "wishful thinking at best". There are ideological lines and some aren't and shouldn't be compromised on.

Maybe we do need a bunch of smaller parties but they'd just form aliances and we'd be back in this same position.

CkG

Would be better than this Dictatorship Regime we have now that is getting worse regardless of which club owns the Whitehouse at the moment.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That may be, but there is a large contingent within the Republican party who are Conservative and really do wish to have smaller gov't and other "traditional" Conservative ideals instead of compromising on their ideals.

I agree, but they lost control of the party many years ago. Their influence is declining. Somewhere along the line, they have a decision to make. Do they continue to support a party that does not represent their beliefs, do they unite to take the party back, or do they break off and form a new Conservative party? As long as they rubber-stamp pseudo-conservatives like Bush, their ideals will receive only lip service.

It's just the opposite of what the democrats have been doing. They thing continuing to compromise their ideals to keep their patchwork together is the answer - but it will be their eventual undoing. There will be a political split in the near future I am afraid - but it won't be a Republican split. Just wait for the democrat version of Perot next election(2008) No, not Nader or some other fringe freak - I'm talking a rogue democrat turned off by the democrat's internal structure - especially if Hillary runs.

CkG

Perhaps, but that's wishful thinking at best. After watching Meet the Press this morning, I'd love to see a new Unity Party composed of people like Biden and McCain. I think they could pull from both camps.

Ultimately, I'd love to see the United States have half-a-dozen viable political parties, forcing an ever-shifting set of alliances to break up the status quo. Of course I'd also like to see a well-informed electorate. I don't expect that to happen either.

No, Conservatives haven't lost their control over the party nor is their influence declining. THAT would be wishful thinking on your part. Like I said before- some thought they had to compromise their ideals so as to gain power for the party. Many of those have seen the err of their ways and are regaining their ideological hold. There is no "take the party back" issue here like there is on the democrat's side. dean ring a bell? democratic wing of the democrat party? The patchwork is falling apart and dean wanted to grab hold of the biggest piece of the cloth. Unfortunately the fringe groups would have been torn away by doing so. kerry is trying to present himself as a band-aid like clinton was. The problem with that is that he isn't clinton even though he is trying hard to be him.

This whole drool fest over McCain is quite funny though. Yes, he's a "maverick" of sorts but he supports Bush - something the left seems seems to want to do anything but do. Anyway, the idea of a "unity" party is nice and all but it as you say is "wishful thinking at best". There are ideological lines and some aren't and shouldn't be compromised on.

Maybe we do need a bunch of smaller parties but they'd just form aliances and we'd be back in this same position.

CkG

Clearly the conservatives are in control of the repbulician party that is why they "fixed" medicad/SS by adding benifits and about 500 billion dollars of spending.

I bet for every bill you can find that the "conservatives" have passed there are 10 that increase the size of the fedral goverment.

And the liberals still complain that 500B was not enough. Seems they would have complained if he would have done nothing at all...

So you saying that Bush isn't a very good liberal. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't control congress and the white house so why would the "conservatives" care what liberals say?

 

[Infohawk]

Maybe we do need a bunch of smaller parties but they'd just form aliances and we'd be back in this same position.

CkG

This is not possible in our system. Look up Duverger's law. We have a two-party system.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That may be, but there is a large contingent within the Republican party who are Conservative and really do wish to have smaller gov't and other "traditional" Conservative ideals instead of compromising on their ideals.

I agree, but they lost control of the party many years ago. Their influence is declining. Somewhere along the line, they have a decision to make. Do they continue to support a party that does not represent their beliefs, do they unite to take the party back, or do they break off and form a new Conservative party? As long as they rubber-stamp pseudo-conservatives like Bush, their ideals will receive only lip service.

It's just the opposite of what the democrats have been doing. They thing continuing to compromise their ideals to keep their patchwork together is the answer - but it will be their eventual undoing. There will be a political split in the near future I am afraid - but it won't be a Republican split. Just wait for the democrat version of Perot next election(2008) No, not Nader or some other fringe freak - I'm talking a rogue democrat turned off by the democrat's internal structure - especially if Hillary runs.

CkG

Perhaps, but that's wishful thinking at best. After watching Meet the Press this morning, I'd love to see a new Unity Party composed of people like Biden and McCain. I think they could pull from both camps.

Ultimately, I'd love to see the United States have half-a-dozen viable political parties, forcing an ever-shifting set of alliances to break up the status quo. Of course I'd also like to see a well-informed electorate. I don't expect that to happen either.

No, Conservatives haven't lost their control over the party nor is their influence declining. THAT would be wishful thinking on your part. Like I said before- some thought they had to compromise their ideals so as to gain power for the party. Many of those have seen the err of their ways and are regaining their ideological hold. There is no "take the party back" issue here like there is on the democrat's side. dean ring a bell? democratic wing of the democrat party? The patchwork is falling apart and dean wanted to grab hold of the biggest piece of the cloth. Unfortunately the fringe groups would have been torn away by doing so. kerry is trying to present himself as a band-aid like clinton was. The problem with that is that he isn't clinton even though he is trying hard to be him.

This whole drool fest over McCain is quite funny though. Yes, he's a "maverick" of sorts but he supports Bush - something the left seems seems to want to do anything but do. Anyway, the idea of a "unity" party is nice and all but it as you say is "wishful thinking at best". There are ideological lines and some aren't and shouldn't be compromised on.

Maybe we do need a bunch of smaller parties but they'd just form aliances and we'd be back in this same position.

CkG

Clearly the conservatives are in control of the repbulician party that is why they "fixed" medicad/SS by adding benifits and about 500 billion dollars of spending.

I bet for every bill you can find that the "conservatives" have passed there are 10 that increase the size of the fedral goverment.

And the liberals still complain that 500B was not enough. Seems they would have complained if he would have done nothing at all...

So you saying that Bush isn't a very good liberal. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't control congress and the white house so why would the "conservatives" care what liberals say?

Because had he not done anything, the liberals would be claiming he does not care about the old folks. The left would be screaming no matter what he did.

Yes this is an attempt to reform medicare and get votes from old folks. Just politics, i am not sure why anyone is surprised by such a move.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Maybe we do need a bunch of smaller parties but they'd just form aliances and we'd be back in this same position.

CkG

This is not possible in our system. Look up Duverger's law. We have a two-party system.

I understand that. And like I said - we'd be right back to where we are in short order if it was attempted.

CkG

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The problem, it seems to me, with the neoconservative movement taking over the Republican party is that there is no longer anywhere to turn for actual fiscal conservatives.

The Bush administration's spending has been nothing short of stunning - if you take out Medicare and Social Security (which are currently profitable, but certainly won't be in the near future, as the Baby Boomers retire), the federal government presently spends $1.50 for each dollar it takes in. This is obviously aggravated by the numerous tax cuts we have undertaken, so that now the federal government is effectively billing future generations for its profligacy. To me this issue transcends party lines, as it is a matter of common sense - this just can't continue. Meanwhile, nowadays, the Democrats are the ones who look (relatively) fiscally responsible.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Ya Ya CAD Democratic Leadership Counsel, the corporate Democrats, The Republican wing of the Democratic Party who has thier hands out and home phone number to every lobbiest in Washington. Needless to say I take everything they say with a truckload of sodium chloride.

It's a party that is selling itself to the same corporate interests that the Republican Party's been selling themselves to don't you see it? Read that Nation article it goes into detail with even Repulicans saying the poor and middle-class are gettig the shaft while wallstreet gets over market value for it's warez and more of it and more welfare.

Everything has gone up while poor and middle-class benis form the USGov are slashed. Sales taxes, property tax, excise tax, gasoline tax, state tax, building "fees", and so on. Sure I got a measly 2-3% federal tax cut this year but it pails in comparison to the 20,000 per house school bond building fee. What the hell are we paying for? I don't see any of it do you?

Meanwhile when's the last time you saw a true constitionalist republican? Or a real genuine Pro gun one? Or a small government one? This war in Iraq GROWS the size and power of the federal government and these changes will be permanent as the 10 round magazine limits on hand guns.

Daris right in that other thread (smartest thing I've ever seen him say)

"Whether Bush or Kerry resides in the White House, do you think that changes anything? Unless Kerry wants to go the way of Kennedy if he is elected, we will see bigger government (epsceially on security), more burden on the middle and lower classes, and more innovative ways to distance the population from the halls of power. "

CAD RE: Clinton and republican wing of the dem party.YES! If you guys would bother to look past the personal transgressions and stop muddying the water with the BS that effects everyone no matter the party you'd see him right of Bush on many issues, which the CATO even verifies when they say the same.

For example: Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 to bring spending in line with taxes which reduced defict and caused boom and busted his ass to get it passed by one vote in the House, and Gore's tie breaker in the Senate.. Then many issues like "welfare reform" and paying off Wall Street for staying behind him like NAFTA and GATT. The Telecommunications Act was a payoff plain and simple. All these issues were republican congress and the DLCers pushing.

Here's the what I agree with with DLC. They are absolutly right when they talk about radical dems aleinating middle class whites and christian white (ie voters) with AA, Abortion on demand, and uber liberal social ideas as far gays etc. But they just wrong to simply take the corporate payoffs like the Repulican party has done for money, advertising eventually translating to votes. Both parties are the same today basically, can't you see it. Clinton even had his perpetual wars.

Now answer some of my questions (this is why I quoted myself) and some of the issues the old right has with the neo-cons in that article:



Everything has gone up under R leadership while poor and middle-class benis form the USGov are slashed. Sales taxes, property tax, excise tax, gasoline tax, state tax, building "fees", and so on have all gone up. Sure I got a measly 2-3% federal tax cut this year but it pails in comparison to the 20,000 per house school bond building fee. What the hell are we paying for? I don't see any of it do you? What this deficet and pay 20%+ of revenues doing to our future?


Meanwhile when's the last time you saw a true constitionalist republican? Or a real genuine Pro gun one? Or a small government one? This war in Iraq GROWS the size and power of the federal government and these changes will be permanent as the 10 round magazine limits on hand guns are.