Now that everyone’s done whomping on Glenn, I’m going to ask if anyone is really surprised over the election results. I mean, really.
To me, it was pretty much in the bag the moment Congress gave Bush war power even though we’re not at war.
Never underestimate the magician’s trick of misdirection. Look. Look, over here. This country’s riddled with problems, the type of which would cause any electorate to shift control, but hey! Over there! There’s this very, very bad man, and we have to do something about him, because he’s a very bad man. So quick, let’s assemble our allies–you know, the country that turns tanks on its protestors, and the country that supplied almost all of the 9/11 hijackers, and the country bordering Afghanistan where the new terrorist camps have been set up–those allies, and do something about this very bad man, because unlike the very bad man, they embrace human rights and the American way and puppies.
And while that’s happening, the Democrats won’t be able to pull the attention of the 1-in-3 people who vote over towards those annoying domestic problems because they’ll be too worried about war, and–as I said ages ago–people don’t like to switch horses in mid-war stream. In a political environment where criticism of the administration is tantamount to being unpatriotic, naturally the electorate is going to give a more clear mandate to a man who, two years ago, it did not give the majority of the popular votes to and likely would be heading for defeat in 2004 if two airplanes hadn’t been flown into the World Trade Center.
So as I said, I wasn’t surprised. The only surprising thing would be if anyone else was.
PAD
• 
I would just like to add my voice to the dozens of voices that have already sounded off here. I agree with Peter 100%. It is a cowardly tactic to attack the valid and legitimate political stance of a well-known conservative at his own website. True, Peter has posted a very hot issue and invited comment. Unfortunately, nearly half of the commentary so far has been far from intelligent, and has been snide and condescending.
In addition, being from Canada and having some distance from American politics, I would like to say that I – and many others in the rest of the world – would take enormous offence at calling Democrats “Socialists”! Anybody who would make such a claim must get out of their own backyard from time to time and take a look at the world around them. On the world stage, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you are both unquestionably right of center politically – the Republicans just happen to be more extreme in their policy.
Personally, I’m with Peter. I invite free comment and free speech, but let’s be intelligent about it. And that’s all I have to say about that.
Peter said
“If I were going to make one vast, sweeping generalization between the extreme left and right, it’s that the latter is far less tolerant than the former. That the former, by nature, questions everything, and the latter, by nature, questions nothing…least of all themselves.
But that’s probably just me.”
It used to be me as well, but now I am less certain. The orthodoxies of the Left now dominate the mainstream media, Hollywood, and the college campuses. Anti-American and anti-Semitic garbage passes commonly for enlightened ideas. Ask Christopher Hitchens or Tammy Bruce, both well-entrenched figures of the Left who recently turned rightward with respect to particular issues (in Hitchens case, war against Saddam, something he supports as a result of many years in contact with Iraqi dissidents) how tolerant the Left is of opposing views within their ranks. The Right has often eaten its young as well (see David Brock) but lately the Left has shown a far greater ruthlessness towards dissenting points of view, as well as disturbing bi-products (anti-Semitism again comes to mind) of their knee-jerk dogma.
Personally, I still waiting for the day when whoever gets elected in any position eventually remembers that they’re supposed to be working for US, and not themselves and/or their party.
Meanwhile, with 2004 coming up, just who do the Democrats have to run against Bush, let alone could actually do the job if they won?!?
Wow Peter. You’ve said everything that I think about this election in your original post and your replies to the conservatives that have nothing better to do then taunt. But then, it doesn’t surpirse me in the least.
The Republican Party is the “I got mine, screw you” party.
” Personally, I still waiting for the day when whoever gets elected in any position eventually remembers that they’re supposed to be working for US, and not themselves and/or their party.”
It would be nice wouldn’t it?
I just want to remind people among the poltical analysis that there are still people out of work and looking at a frayed social safety net in our country. That we will be sending well trained and well paid military personnel to a country to kill people who are not well paid or well trained. People will suffer who never hurt anyone in this country. People will continue to suffer who live in this country. And we have a government that’s deaf to that suffering.
Oh God yes, someone voting Republican must’ve been tricked into doing so.
I hate the bûllšhìŧ that one-sided liberals and conservatives spew out. I voted Republican and Democrat in my state’s election. Some Repubs got into office that I wasn’t thirlled about, but I can deal with.
I’m slightly concerned about there being total GOP control, but we only have to live with that for two years.
As for the Exhalted Democratic Party, take a look at the Paul Wellstone memorial. They turned a funeral into a rally. While there is a tolerable degree of pushing for the vote, their actions were disgusting.
“As for the Exhalted Democratic Party, take a look at the Paul Wellstone memorial. They turned a funeral into a rally. While there is a tolerable degree of pushing for the vote, their actions were disgusting.”
Does it make you happy if I said the Democratic Party is the “We know how every minute of your life should be lived” party.
I don’t like either party. I don’t like the RP’s unwillingness to help people. And I hate the DP eagerness to force people to do what the DP think is best: like seatbelt laws or helmet laws. If I’m only effecting me, stay out of it.
But when it gets right down to it, I’d rather have a government that helps people then one that sits there and does nothing except what benefits the upper class. Hence I’ll label myself a Democrat.
I wish that the liberals would simply use the term conservative, maybe if they were more civil they would get more suppport. Of course only brilliant people can make up such amazinly intelligent slurs like the Taliban/Hezbollah wing of the Republican party or the Extra Chromosone Crowd.
I prefer republican, I do, because I don’t like the idea of being told how to live my life. I don’t like the idea of censorship, I don’t like the idea of big government. However, I’m still glad that Steve Largent (republican) running for Governor of Oklahoma lost, because he wasn’t a good guy, he wasn’t smart, and he wasn’t interesting. Just like I’m sure that some democrats running weren’t nearly as interesting as the republicans. Politics IS trickery. This much is blatantly obvious, but the fact of the matter is, people vote for what they LIKE.
On another note, isn’t the reason the forums are here is FOR comments and arguments? I don’t think you would have posted your political views if you didn’t want to discuss them. The fact is that stupid people have a tendency to attack other people for unfounded reasons, but you don’t need to step down to their level PAD. I don’t feel “duped” and I resent the accusation. I don’t feel like I’m not smart enough to know whats best for me. All I know is what the candidates say and do. Thats what I base it on. If they don’t live up to their promises, then I can always not vote for them.
“If they don’t live up to their promises, then I can always not vote for them.”
You must change your vote every election then. Cause they all lie. And they all go the party line.
Posted by Gary:
And I hate the DP eagerness to force people to do what the DP think is best: like seatbelt laws or helmet laws. If I’m only effecting me, stay out of it.
The notion that these things only affect you isn’t as true as you’d make out.
Think about it, you’re in a car accident, with your seatbelt off. As a result, rather than a big bruise from the seatbelt, you’re taken to the hospital. Your space in the hospital queue is an added burden on the hospital’s emergency services. That affects a lot more people than just you.
Posted by Andrew Grant:
Think about it, you’re in a car accident, with your seatbelt off. As a result, rather than a big bruise from the seatbelt, you’re taken to the hospital.
First, I do wear my seatbelt. I just don’t like the government telling me I have to. And I don’t ride a motorcycle, I simply do not like the government telling me I would have to wear a helmet if I did ride one.
Second, I think the chances that I’ll be in a accident is remote. (I have already been run into so its not a nothing ever happens to me world view.) It is remote enough, that I feel the law is an overstepping of the government’s authority.
And people can be harmed if they have their seat belt on as well. My sister would be dead if she hadn’t been thrown into the back seat when her boyfriend(at the time) decided to have his car’s brakes go and they ended up rolling down a hill. The car was crushed down to the actual seat cushion on her side. You’d never know it was a car. In addition, if the seatbelt is across your body wrong, it can kill you or seriously hurt you.
So you’re not safe with your seatbelt on or off.
It’s pretty basic: the vast majority of the world’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority. the vast majority of information media is owned by that small minority with the concentrated wealth.
In spite of what might be an actuall overall bias towards “liberalism” by a majority of individual reporters; ultimately what news reaches the broad public is controlled and regulated by the owners of the media. a case in point is the suppression of reporting by Greg Palast, an american working for the BBC, particularly in the wake of the 2000 elections – before it was “water under the bridge” – at a time when his information might have made a difference, at least in the realm of public opinion.
America’s much-vaunted “free press”, a necessary part of a working democracy, ultimately serves the interests of a small group of very powerful people.
It doesn’t seem surprising that a good amount of news apparently goes against “corporate interests” (for lack of a better term) – in that a certain amount of playing both sides is necessary to preserve an air of fairness. this is particularly easy in a country where “playing both sides” involves very little movement, since alternatives to the narrow political band available to voters on a national scale has been vilified or squashed long ago.
Keeping within realistic parameters, a good start towards practicing the ideal of free press would be to grant all presidential candidates on the ballot equal access to air time before each election, for free. If the media owners can’t shell out for it, i would be thrilled to pay for the service with my tax dollars, since the resulting better information would directly lead to a better world for me to live in.
American voters are potentially the most powerful group of people in the world – hypothetically they could trump all the money in the world by electing a government who guards the interests of common people more than, say, weapons manufacturers. I don’t think that right now we are being given the information necessary to serve our own best interest .
Adding to media manipulation, there is the newly surfaced possibility – in my eyes a certainty – that the electoral process itself is being tampered with at the booths. I would have been stunned to see Jeb Bush lose in Florida, and i will be stunned if George loses Florida in 2004. All of this to me justifies the use of the term “Coup” in regard to the outcome of our democratic elections.
Putting aside my opinion of vote tampering; i would love a thought-out rebuttal to my comments on the state of our information media and its effect on the workings of democracy (and of the world we dominate).
“Keeping within realistic parameters, a good start towards practicing the ideal of free press would be to grant all presidential candidates on the ballot equal access to air time before each election, for free.”
I agree. And the basis could be quite simple. You want to broadcast in the United States then you’ll provide airtime during Prime Time for Presidential Elections.
I use to be a democrat and voted for Bill Clinton twice, and I have since switched to being an independent and voted for Bush in 2000. I just couldn’t be part of a political party that actually defended a president who would lie under oath to cover his butt and then use white house lawyers and his wife to go out and defend his lies. If a republican president had done this I would of hoped that the democrats would persecute him for perjury, and I know they would. I finally realized that the Democratic leaders are willing to do whatever it takes to hold power. The only democrat I ever hear criticizing unethical democratic leaders is someguy who writes for “The West Wing” who is on Chris Matthews now and then. I use to think it was only democratic leaders who were willing to put up with such unethical conduct, but I now realize that most regular working Joe democrats have accepted the mentality that it doesn’t matter how your leaders act as long as they have the right view on key issues. Bill Clinton can use his wife for political gain, lie to her, and have multiple affairs, but as long as he endorsed the right “women’s issues” it never mattered how he treated women persoanlly. Yes, republicans have dome simlar things in the past, but does that justify defending all illegal/unethical behavior? Anyways, I’m now an Independent and I vote for individuals not for parties. I’m not so much worried about republicans controlling congress and the presidency because if they do a bad job, they’ll be gone, but if the economy turns around(which it looks like it has started to correct itself) and the country impoves both domestically and in the foreign policy area, then I don’t care what party is in control as long they are doing their jobs and not abusing the power they have been entrusted.
“I vote for individuals not for parties”
But 90% of them blindly vote the party line. I like John McCain. I like Arlen Spector, I like (first name?) Jeffords, I liked Jim Trafficant-although he appears to have been a crook like the rest now. But the rest of them are party following bûŧŧ kìššërš without any original thought.
There’s been no president in my lifetime that I don’t think was exactly like Bill Clinton. And I have a very very low opinion of the sitting one.
Why is it that members ofthe Left (even the “Intellectual left”) cannot comprehend that someone might actually think conservative ideas are a *good* thing, and instead have to resort to claims of coups or fraud?
This is the problem with the Left. It has contempt for voters. So here’s the plan. In 2004, the Democratic leadership (whoever that may be) should run on a honest ticket. I’d suggest something like “We Know You’re All Idiots, But Elect Us and We’ll Babysit.” Or more succinctly “Trust Us. We’re the Only Intellectuals.”
Nice ring to it, no?
Jamie said:
“the Democratic leadership (whoever that may be) should run on a honest ticket. I’d suggest something like “We Know You’re All Idiots, But Elect Us and We’ll Babysit.” Or more succinctly “Trust Us. We’re the Only Intellectuals.”
And the Republicans could run ads such as:
“Hey Starving in the Streets? That’s too bad.”
“Your school in a poor area and not getting enough funds? Local Control is doing fine for ours!”
“Classroom overcrowded? There’s not enough money to hire more teachers. We need another missile to destroy the world.”
“Tax Cuts for the Wealthy! Chicken Feed for the rest of the country.”
“Recently laid off because we destroyed the economy? Get a job slacker!”
Steve,
If any of that dogma were true, the GOP wouldn’t control the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and a majority of the Governor’s mansions.
Voter have elected the GOP because they want to give conservativism a chance. Deal with it.
The Republican Party is the “I got mine, screw you” party.
Hëll yes. I have mine, why do you want it? Get your own dámņ it. I didn’t have mine given to me. I worked for it. No silver spoons, no government subsidies, no grants, no stealing, just blood sweat and tears. Now that I have it you want to take if and give it to someone else who isn’t working for it. Why they hëll? Where in the constitution does it say everyone has the right to eat, or live well? Everyone has the same opportunity (more or less). What you make of it is your own problem. Leave me out of it please!
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention. I do agree with PAD on one thing. This is HIS blog. The point here is for him to post what he thinks and feels. Not what is politically correct. This isn’t the happy feel good agree with anyone site, and I don’t think he should be attacked for posting these beliefs. I mean seriously, look at all the elected positions in the country (governors, congressmen, mayors, president, etc). There is about a 50/50 split. That means about half the country is republican, and the other half democrat (with some independents of course). Everyone is going to disagree with half the country most of the time when it comes to political opinions, and people should not be attacked for it.
Rant over.
Word.
Hëll yes. I have mine, why do you want it?
What I truly reject is the claim that Republicans are the Christian party. I am an Evangelical and my entire Church is Republican. Except me. Around election time I can’t stand going to church. I don’t see this selfish attitude of “I got mine” going along well with Christian dogma such as “Do onto others as you would have them do to you.” And Deut 15:11 “I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” And how its easier for the camel to pass through the eye of a needle then it is for a rich man to enter heaven.
In addition, I believe that a Christian elected into the government has the the obligation to try to make the government help the less fortunate. I don’t see the Republicans doing that.
Good night. I’m done for tonight.
Posted by Gary:
So you’re not safe with your seatbelt on or off.
True, there’s always exceptional circumstances. In the case you mentioned, though, I’d think that the problem was in the fact that the car had no dámņ brakes, for one. 🙂 It’s good news to hear that your sister survived the crash, though.
I’m going to make a general statement and say that seatbelts are more of an asset in matters of road safety than they are a problem. My personal opinion only; I’ve got nothing to back that up with 🙂
Remember also, the odds of you having an accident are remote; the odds of anyone in the US having an accident are, in comparison, extremely high. A law making seatbelts mandatory may not be your cup of tea, but from the government’s POV, it would benefit everyone.
For people like you, belting up is common sense. For people who don’t have common sense, a law would be beneficial. The only real question is if the government cares about the safety and wellbeing of those without common sense 🙂
Thank god I’m Canadian.
Okay, a bunch of stuff, some worrisome, some interesting some asinine. The first, going back to campaign 2000–one person claimed only to know what clothes Gore wore and that he was a big liar. Ignorance of this sort can only be the voter’s own fault–basically, my question is how ignorant has the voting populace become that they only understand things in the most simplistic,tabloid-inspired rhetoric? What is that? When did the intelligent voter die? A couple of things here to add. Bush won because people did not like Al Gore, he was too stiff and ultimately too intelligent. Americans hate smart people–it scares them, they cry eltism, say something vaguely insulting then shut down in the face of it.
Bush came out like a “Good Ole Boy,” he stole his father’s platforms and speeches and it worked. Sadly, he has not stolen his father’s kindness.
The liberals were side struck because Gore is actually more conservative than many liked, his history as anti-choice and his wife Tipper come to mind. This allowed Ralph Nader to steal votes from an already split liberal body. Without Nader, who became nothing more than a Spoiler, despite promises he made not to, Bush wouldn’t have stood a chance.
More importantly, however, is the question of how Bush has behaved since taking office, check to see how many anti-humanitarian actions he has committed, how many programs that help the poor and needy that he has closed. Now, voters have sent him a message that his brand of politics is not only okay, it is mandated.
Finally, it seems hilarious (read frightening) to me that the Republicans have actually duped the American people into believing that they are the party of compassion and idealism. This, my dear friends is simply not true, hasn’t been true, conservativism is not about idealism nor compassion, but about conservation, hegemony–keeping those in power, as powerful as possible. Those that believe that Republicanism is out to help any, but an elite few, are doing some serious lying to themselves.
Yes, its true that Democrats are in disarray, they need to regroup, need to ignore the idea that opposition to the President is either unpatriotic or soft. Change, growth is what the Democrats stand for, protection of citizenry and not “Big Business,” protection of individual rights–a democratic ideal has all but become Republican now.
The only truly good thing that will come of this, is the fact that the Republicans will not make sense of the power and greed that they now have, instead, Bush will turn the world against him and ultimately turn Americans against him as well and there will be a great purge. We will need to clean our hands of this era, because we are not behaving as a morally upright people. It’s funny that when I was a kid, it always seemed that if government was doing something immoral, something sneaky and underhanded, something that served to hurt the poor, the minority, the environment–something lacking in what I would consider to be very basic ideals–it was being done, promoted etc. by Republicans. Has that really changed all that much?
Grem-
P.S. I never said Bush was dumb, only that those with his I.Q. are generally referred to as mildly mentally retarded–its a clinical term, not a derogatory comment.
Grem said
I never said Bush was dumb, only that those with his I.Q. are generally referred to as mildly mentally retarded–its a clinical term, not a derogatory comment.
Yet still he beats your people like red headed step children every time they try to take him on. So by your standards the Democratic leadership must be severely mentally retarded. Actually, when I look at it from that perspective it explains a lot.
Steve needs to define his terms, like “rich”. According to the Joint Economic Commitee if you earn more than $27,682 a year, you pay 96% of the tax bit in america and are rich.
If you earn more than $55,225 a year, you contribute to 84% of the tax payments in america.
The democrats have said how “it isn’t fair” that some people didn’t get a tax rebate. Well, it’s not fair that based on the amount I get paid (neither of the amounts listed above) I have to pay as much of the tax bite that I do.
http://www.house.gov/jec/press/2002/10-24-02.htm
As for other comments
Democrats are for growth??? Growth of what? It’s certainly not the economy.
Why would they work to raise our taxes, raise the taxes on the elderly on their social security taxes, implement a marraige tax, estate tax, work to keep the death tax….
If the democrats are for growth, then why extended unemployment benefits for 13 weeks? That only causes the person to be more reliant on the government, and it provides less of a reason for that person to get up and do something on their own — like get a job! Now, I will give you that President Bush did sign that bill that provided that extension. I don’t agree with that, but (and this is the big one) the second that he signed it, the democrats no longer had that as an issue to use against him.
If you want to know why the democrats lost, look at what they did.
The president suggested a policy, and the democrats whined about it.
The democrats offered a change in a bill that would ultimately benefit them, the president signed it, thus taking the issue away from them.
But when the president suggested another policy, like, I don’t know, homeland security to defend us, and the democrats whined.
The people just looked at who wanted to do the right thing, and voted that way.
The only growth the democrats are for is their growth of power.
If that wasn’t true, then why are the clintons STILL in the news so much, with multiple articles about how Hilary wants back in the white house. (god help us if that happens again)
Democrats are for protection of citizenry? Sure, under government control. Have you paid attention to the sniper shootings that happened? Did you see what happened to the politicians that suggested we need more gun laws to protect ourselves from the snipers? Did you also see the reports that people were BUYING more guns to protect themselves.
We don’t need more gun laws, we need to enforce the laws that we have.
Next thing you’ll try to do is say that democrats are trying to take social security away from the elderly. (A lie, since SS checks have increased for the last few years instead of decreased.)
Conservatisim is not about keeping the “elite” in power. It’s about less taxes, and a lot less government in our lives. (Isn’t it bad enough the government is there every time we flush a toilet?)
Take a quick glance at this thread again, people.
THIS is why the system doesn’t work. Look at all the generalizations on BOTH sides of the issues discussed. I see three camps. Camp one: “Liberals bad, Republicans rightfully elected government.” Camp two: “Republicans bad, Democrats need to organize and show America this.” Camp three: “Both parties are inherently bad, thus the system doesn’t work.”
Look, I’m a big old liberal. But at the same time, I’m not one of those liberals that thinks that the conservative ideology is always wrong, that it is always negative for the U.S., etc. Neither am I of the opinion that Democrats are always right, they have the right solutions for the country, etc. There are good Republicans and there are bad Republicans. There are good Democrats and there are bad Democrats. Each person’s definition of good and bad varies.
But what disturbs me is the sweeping generalizations being made in this thread. “Democrats want to take all your money and give it to other people.” “Republicans don’t give a dámņ about anybody but the rich and the corporate.” Come on, people. I can name several Democrats who seem to care mainly about the rich and the corporate, and several Republicans who’d be willing to vote against tax cuts in favor of using tax revenue for helping giving grants to states for improvement of public schools, or other noble ends.
I’m a registered Democrat. But I agree with several people in this thread, though. I think the Democrats need to STAND for something, rather than merely react to what the Republicans put forth. Do the Democrats even have an agenda? Probably, but you have look hard to see it. That’s a shame. Do the Republicans have an agenda? Maybe, but mainly, as far as I can tell, it focuses on a war with Iraq and the war on terrorism, and domestic problems be dámņëd.
I don’t like Bush. I really can’t believe the American people would vote for this guy in as great a numbers as they did. I don’t like him, but not because he’s a Republican. I like John McCain. I like Colin Powell. There are tons of good Republicans that I like. But at the same time, I don’t like Bush. I don’t think he deserves the Presidency. At the same time, frankly, I don’t think Gore did either, because he didn’t stand up for anything either, just distanced himself from his successful President and kept muttering about lockboxes. I voted for Gore, lesser of two evils, but ultimately, neither one particularly “wowed” me. When given a choice between a mildly charismatic “aw shucks” country boy and a stiff but entrenched and intelligent man, I can see why the American people gave Bush so many votes.
Bottom line: I truly believe that the conservative ideology doesn’t posit real answers to some issues. I don’t think the liberal ideology answers some different issues either. But I think I’d be pleased if we had a candidate who stood up to Bush and challenged him, instead of towing the line to avoid looking unpatriotic or elitist.
I’d like to see a candidate who says, “Yes, Mr. President, your past business dealings are shady. Yes, Mr. Vice President, as an executive with Halliburton you worked with the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to secure access to an oil pipeline, did you not? Yes, Mr. President, as you campaigned in the 2000 Election, you used the Enron jet. Yes, Mr. President, you’ve accomplished very little in your two years in office, aside from waging a noble war on terrorism. But if your aim is to eliminate terrorism, you’ll never win, though I applaud your efforts. If your aim is to broaden the powers of the Executive to the detriment of civil liberties, so that every military exercise becomes a battle in the war on terrorism, I don’t buy it.”
You give me a candidate who’s brave enough to say that, I’ll vote for him, Republican, Democrat, Reform, Green Party alike. It won’t happen, but I’d be tickled if it did, and I’d hope that my party would put forth someone. My god, Gephardt and Daschle aren’t the answer. They have no charisma, and in the end, they’ll tow the party line, which right now is, “Well, Bush is popular, so we can’t oppose him too vehemently, so yeah, let’s look patriotic by giving him what he wants (a war with Iraq). It’ll mean sacrificing our position and our goals, but hey, politics is about knowing when to sacrifice what you believe is right.”
But please, people, don’t become so cocky as to think your party has all the answers. Don’t become so cocky that you begin to point fingers at each other and say “It’s their party’s fault!” Disagree with a particular ideology all you want. But the tone of many of the posts in this thread is snide, condescending, and smacks of those mudslinging campaign advertisements we see on TV.
Shouldn’t we be above this sort of thing?
And above all: this is PAD’s blog. He can write a random series of letters and numbers if he chooses to. Frankly, I agree with Peter to a large extent. But, as I said, its his blog. Furthermore, I don’t go to conservative message boards to cause a ruckus. You don’t like the message Peter writes? You don’t have to, you’re free to disagree with what he says. By all means, leave. But, if you’re going to participate in intelligent discourse, make it intelligent. Not snide cocky assertions straight off a party platform.
Like I said, that’s why the political system doesn’t seem to work anymore, if Election Day is any indication, in my opinion. We should be above petty mudslinging, we should be able to debate issues with intelligence, not dirt. Call me idealistic in believing that. I’ll own that I am. And yet, here we are. Land of the free…home of the muddy.
Hëll yes. I have mine, why do you want it? Get your own dámņ it. I didn’t have mine given to me. I worked for it. No silver spoons, no government subsidies, no grants, no stealing, just blood sweat and tears.
Right.
So I assume you paid for college 100% yourself? And if you have kids, you paid 100% of their tuition, right? You’ve never taken a low-interest loan from a bank, because, you know, many of those loans are subsidized by federal grants and you never take a dámņëd wooden nickel from the federal government, right?
The logical fallacy of “I can do it on my own (when, in point of fact, 99.999% of people haven’t), so therefore everyone else must have to.” It’s why people love Republicans so much, that warm and fuzzy feeling they exude.
Now that I have it you want to take if and give it to someone else who isn’t working for it.
So, as they mentioned on The West Wing last week, every year you demand of your state government that they return every cent they’ve been given from the federal government, right? You cry and wail that you can’t DARE keep a single penny of federal money for public schools, infrastructure, crime prevention, anything, right? After all, if you refuse to give it to anyone else, you must refuse to take it from anyone else. Can’t have it both ways.
Why they hëll? Where in the constitution does it say everyone has the right to eat, or live well? Everyone has the same opportunity (more or less). What you make of it is your own problem. Leave me out of it please!
Heaven forfend the people who have good fortune help out those who don’t. That might actually be, good God, the decent thing to do.
But, nah, you’re right. You’ve got it. Why share? Caring about other people is for liberals.
Thanks for making my point for me, jáçkášš.
JLK
Oh, by the way, remind us also how you never eat any kind of pork product, never drink milk, and never eat anything made with grain grown in the United States, because those farms get by on federal subsidies and you, of course, never take or use anything from anyone that was in any way helped by the federal government, or anyone else. Can’t forget that.
JLK
I’d like to see the faces of the yahoos who voted in the vast army of Republicans ready to bring an Orwellian fate on us when the bombs start dropping because their fearless leaders figured it was the right thing to do. I know who’ll be in underground bunkers, safe for a while, and it won’t be us.
Well, Mr.Cravens, I applaud you. That was one of the most intelligent, open minded posts I’ve read in this thread.
Here’s where I stand. I hate politics. I hate choosing the “lesser of two evils”. I hate the fact that, despite all the hub bub about Reform and Independant and Green and Shoemaker and Buttplugger, that we still have a two party system. Why can’t we vote for an individual? I didn’t vote for anyone in the last presidential election because I didn’t believe in any of the candidates. And dont’ anyone give me crap about not having a right to complain. I have every right because the current system is ridiculous in my opinion and that was my way of showing it. Did it accomplish anything? About as much as voting would have. We have the electoral college to decide who becomes president. They are supposed to vote based on percentages of the states they represent, but if that were the case, Gore would be in office right now. And no, I’m not bìŧçhìņg, I’m just stating the obvious. We have people appointed that are supposed to cast votes and represent us, but they can easily decide that they know what is best for us mere morons, or even be bought (this is of course pertaining to presidential stuff). I don’t like it.
Political rhetoric and jargon annoys me. Mudslinging campaigns should be banned. We should be voting on the ideals, values and integrity of an idividual, not who can trash talk the best.
I have been up since 3am (I work an early shift at UPS), so this is all probably less coherent and more cranky than I would like it to be. And with that in mind, I’ll leave ya’ll with a little fact I learned a year or two ago that I find interesting:
we are not a democracy. we are a republic. ask anyone who has recently taken the test to become a U.S. citezen.
broccoli and stubbly fish,
toby
I didn’t really care who won. Neither the Democrat nor the Republican party being in power is going to cause the country to fall apart.
All I really care about is finishing college, paying off my huge school loan and having a good Peter David book to read every once in a while.
I was reading down this thread thinking of what needed to be said and then saw Michael Cravens response above which said so much of what I was thinking of posting.
Here’s what I think was missing:
We make a mistake when we assume that people that we disagree with are inherently evil. With the exception of a few of the genuinely mentally ill, nobody believes that they’re acting in an evil fashion. We all want to believe that we’re doing the right thing, even people like Osama bin Laden who — from our point of view — is clearly responsible for evil actions.
I like to believe that I’m a moderate, although I usually vote for the Republican candidates. (Here in Cook County Illinois, that’s made easier by the amount of Democratic machine that we still have around.) I wanted to punch a hole for a Democratic candidate for governor, Paul Vallas. Unfortunately, he wasn’t on the final ballot, having lost the primary to the son-in-law of a powerful Chicago alderman. So I held my nose and voted for the Republican, because I considered the Democratic alternative to be worse.
I voted against Gore (far more than for Bush), because he seemed to come from the “shrinking pie” school of economics which would suggest that we all have to make do with less, because we can’t afford the standard of living that we now enjoy. And that sort of philosophy worries me, because I believe that the “rich” — and I count Gore among that group — aren’t going to see their standard of living declining, because they can afford to pay whatever price is required in order to obtain the piece they want of the shrinking pie.
I want more pie. I want a bigger pie so that we can all have more of it. I want us all to be filthy, stinking rich compared to historical standards and I want to be able to bring the rest of the world along with us. It doesn’t matter to me if someone else has a few more chits than I do as long as everybody has all of the chits that they need.
It’s a lovely dream. You may say that it’s an impossible dream. But I would rather try to grow our way into it than settle for a stagnant, shrinking society.
(Hang on, I’m taking a sharp turn in this argument. I’ll get back to my point in a second.)
I read a book recently, “Rare Earth”, that discussed a subject that I had been musing on for some time — that intelligent life may be incredibly unlikely, that we might be the only intelligent species for many, many light years around, possibly in the galaxy.
If that’s true, then we almost have a duty to get the heck out there and colonize the place. But (and here I go back to my original argument) we’re going to need a whole lot bigger pie to be able to afford to do it.
I want more pie.
So I assume you paid for college 100% yourself? And if you have kids, you paid 100% of their tuition, right? You’ve never taken a low-interest loan from a bank, because, you know, many of those loans are subsidized by federal grants and you never take a dámņëd wooden nickel from the federal government, right?
Didn’t go to college, couldn’t afford it. My kids are home schooled, so we pay for that ourselves (even though my property taxes go towards public schools). I have never taken a subsidised loan. So there…:)
That being said, calling me a jáçkášš only reflects on you..
I give to charities my way. Through my church, through my community. However, the government takes over a third of what I earn (which implies they own a third of my labor). Then, the tax where I live (which I paid for out of monies I already paid taxes on) then they tax my gas, and my food, and my clothing, and my telephone. The various governments end up taking well over half of what I earn. Serfs in the dark ages were allowed to keep more of what they earned than I am.
Let charity be a personal choice. While the constitution doesn’t guarantee the right for everyone to be rich, it does guaranty personal liberty. That means someone has the RIGHT to be a selfish áššhølë, or do you not believe in personal freedom? Is half the liberal platform a joke? I thought the ACLU is all about personal freedom. And trust me, when every single democrat gives away every extra penny they earn beyond the minimum they need to live (say anything over $45000.00 a year?), move into $50,000.00 homes, and drive $2000.00 cars, I will believe they care. But as long as every major democratic leader drives in Luxury cars, and live on caviar and champagne, the whole idea of liberal generosity is a JOKE. At least Republicans are honest about it.
And next time, try not attacking people for their beliefs. It makes you look closed and small minded. I would hope that’s not true.
Word.
PAD opened this blog for comments. Though his views are strident, I can’t believe someone as intelligent would want people using the blog simply to praise him with great praise. I commend him for opening the discussion and letting it continue. I would like to pompously remind the people saying how rude and condescending people are being in this conversation, that they are in fact having a conversation, each and every post and with a fair degree of intelligence.
Though I certainly disgree with PAD’s weltanschauen, I admire his tolerance and appreciation for free discourse.
Can I just ask for the topic to switch to far more important topics, such as what everybody thought of Buffy? We’ve almost hit the point of calling each other Nazi’s here.
I, personally, think this election was the Democrats to lose…and that they did just that.
I actually do agree with PAD concerning the fact that the current Iraq situation has been cooked up to draw attention away from a flailing economy. I blame the Democrats for not being brave enough to stand up and say exactly that.
Why didn’t they? Because, in my opinion, they were terrified of being labeled as unpatriotic.
I believe that the Bush administration has used the unity that came from 9-11 to push through several programs that push the boundaries of liberty. I’m glad the public finally reacted negatively when we got to the TIPS program–an element the Democrats should have been questioning publicly.
Instead of calling the administration on those issues, they meekly complied. They supported resolutions so they wouldn’t be un-American.
I would have had more respect had they stood up and pointed out that the Emperor had no clothes. I would have loved to hear any Democrat say what was on their mind instead of taking the coward’s way out. Instead they were compliant with their own execution.
I’m a Libertarian, and it scares me when either party has this much control in the federal government. The Republicans tend to scare me on social issues (They KNOW what is right and will make sure you get it), while the Democrats scare me on economics and sometimes social issues (They know what’s good for you and will make sure you get it).
So, yes, I believe the current situation is a bad one. I also think it’s one the Democrats manufactured for themselves.
Alan said: ” Steve needs to define his terms, like “rich”. According to the Joint Economic Commitee if you earn more than $27,682 a year, you pay 96% of the tax bit in america and are rich.”
Rich means living well beyond comfortable. I would say a single individual making less then $50,000 should pay no income taxes. A family making less then $100,000 should pay no income taxes.
Anyone making more then those figures I consider wealthy. And those making more would not like my tax structure. I’ve told others I would be assassinated if I was ever elected President.
Jamie said:”If any of that dogma were true, the GOP wouldn’t control the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and a majority of the Governor’s mansions.”
I was just doing what you did for the other side. Like others here have said I detest both ruling parties.
Despite my dislike for both parties, I have abolutely no sympathy for the person who stays home and doesn’t vote and then complains for the next 2 or 4 years. Going and writing in none of the above or Mickey Mouse is better then staying home and it gives you the right to complain.
I personly vote for who I think is the lesser of two evils. Usually the Democrat. However my state does have a Republican I like in the Senate: Arlen Spector. The other one Rick Santorum I consider to be a disgusting party bûŧŧ kìššìņg devil.
Hey PAD – I’m a conservative Republican from Texas who was disappointed that Ron Kirk wasn’t elected to the Senate. I think he was the best man for the job.
I want to second your thoughts of how your guests are treating you on your own web site. Hey, I know your politics, I don’t always agree with them but they do make me think. Your personal beliefs doesn’t stop me enjoying your work and from me thinking of you as one of my favorite writers. As I write this I’m listening to Bruce Springsteen’s The Rising, Bruce’s politics are much more liberal then mine but that doesn’t mean he can’t write songs.
I just wish everyone would calm down and show a little courtesy but wait a minute, we are talking about the internet, never mind.
Keep Hope Alive (and Peter keep the faith!)
And I thought Northern Ireland polotics were difficult!
I did meet Bill Clinton in Belfast once, and you know the way they say you should never meet your hero, because you will be dissapointed? Well, nothing was said, but you could see it in his eyes.
Uh… did anyone read the latest Supergirl?
Toby said…
“We have the electoral college to decide who becomes president. They are supposed to vote based on percentages of the states they represent, but if that were the case, Gore would be in office right now. “
Just want to clear something up here. Electoral college votes depend on the state that they are representing. Some states do have the percentage of votes mean that the votes will be cast in that manner. Others are a “winner take all” formula, that means all the votes go to the state winner. The majority of states use the former method, winner take all. This country does not use a popular vote method of elections, it is a representative democracy.
So, when does Knight Moves come out?
However, I’m still glad that Steve Largent (republican) running for Governor of Oklahoma lost, because he wasn’t a good guy, he wasn’t smart, and he wasn’t interesting. Just like I’m sure that some democrats running weren’t nearly as interesting as the republicans.
Case in point: the New York Governor’s Race. The only reason I voted for Pataki was that McCall’s running mate gave me the same sleezy feeling I get looking at Ðìçk Cheney, and Golisano went to the same college I was nearly killed in… TWICE. Since I saw first hand what sort of wackadoos Alfred State College creates, I sure wasn’t going to throw my vote to a Psycho-School Alum!
Basically, what my voting method boils down to is “Vote not for the one who promises you everything you want; vote for the one who makes you scream at the television the least.”
Oh, and Steve? Unless I miss my mark, Jefford’s first name is ‘Jim.’
I thought I’d tackle The Bush Issue by comparing it to the Canadian scene. In Canada, the political situation is more or less the opposite. The Liberal Party is control, and the Conservatives are too fragmented to make serious bid for power. The result is that our Prime Minister has almost absolute power (theoretically more than the States president, as he completely controls the Legislative and the Executive). In Canada and the States, a leader with such control is a dangerous thing. The difference is, if our Jean Cretien unilaterally ordered Iraq reduced to a missle-laden wasteland, he’d be laughed at. In Bush’s case, there’d soon be a missle-laden wasteland.
Incidently, about the War on Terrorism: hasn’t the States done its share of supporting terrorism? After all, they supported Castro’s original rise to power, and then there was that Bay of Pigs thing later… I guess when the terrorists are on the States’ side, they’re freedom fighters.
People get the government they deserve.
This year a majority of people thought — for whatever reason, be it naive misdirection or genuine conviction.
In two years, if the Republicans screw it all up, they’ll probably get voted out (they have no one to blame but themselves, after all). And if they get it all right, and everything’s hunky-dory, then by all means, let them stay.
“Incidently, about the War on Terrorism: hasn’t the States done its share of supporting terrorism? After all, they supported Castro’s original rise to power, and then there was that Bay of Pigs thing later… I guess when the terrorists are on the States’ side, they’re freedom fighters.”
Stick to your own country’s history, because you’re obviously misinformed about ours.
This is an example of the problem I’ve seen with the Left in the Western World lately. They react, and that’s all they do. They forgot about doing good, and think they can only help by tearing down the Right. It has been my experience that excessive complainers are also the last to act. They spend all their energy complaining, while what really matters in life passes them by. This has become increasingly illustrative of the Left. This is a poor showing for those who are the self-proclaimed most intelligent and caring party. I would vote for the Left if they actually evaluated the programs they institute to see if the benefits they wanted actually occurred. Generally, I vote selectively, voting against people who are obviously corrupt or incompetent, regardless of their party. Handily losing the election, the Left complains that the voters were fooled by smoke and mirrors. I don’t think so. The Left has lost its heart and its mind, and babbles about like a senile old man. The Right may be war-happy, reluctant to help the downtrodden, and too sensitive to the interests of the rich, but they won for a reason. The Left needs to fix its ship, or they won’t be winning much for a long time to come.
Although I am begining to fear that this thread will never end, I have a few thoughts to add. I don’t really know whether I am a Republican or a Democrat. I voted for Bush the first time, though I doubt that I will again. Due to my religious beliefs, I tend to side with Republicans on certain social issues, though I also appreciate many so-called “liberal” ideas as health care and a safe environment.
What is my point in all this? I think that party politics has a horrible effect on our political system. Partisanship blinds many of us from having truly thoughtful debates on important issues. Instead of debating policy, we trade insults. Republicans answer every attack with a reminder of Clinton’s moral failings, while Democrats answer every attack with a comment on Bush’s IQ, or lack there of. All right, we know Bush is stupid and Clinton is a male šlûŧ, can we please move on to the safety of social security or the nation as a whole now? Can we ever acknowledge that in a truly representative democracy it is not consensus but a diversity of different views that makes us strong?
Frankly, I think the parties need to emulate Roosevelt. Republicans should emulate Theodore, a man more than willing to make war with an enemy, but also capable of winning a Nobel prize for his part in making peace. Teddy fought for the common man in the face of trusts, and he was one of the first presidents to understand the importance of the environment. The Democrats need to emulate Franklin, a man who knew that it was possible to work with business to get results, and who rose above challenges to do his duty to his country. Most of all, FDR could inspire the common people and give them hope and courage in times of trial. If either party could emulate these great men, or women if you wish to include Elenor, then the nation could truly be great again.
And for my final thought, I always liked what Winston Churchill said about party divisions: “Any man under the age of 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 40 who is not conservative has no head.”
Ben Hunt