55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:26 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
If a conservative had written this kind of article, the left would be screaming bloody murder (and rightfully so).

Why? Who cares?

The most offensive thing about the article is the writing, which isn't up to the level of most middle-schoolers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:39 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra wrote:
Quote:
The most troubling aspect of this dilemma is McG's acknowledgement that Republican candidates deliberately engage in tactics to dupe the electorate (e.g. the anti-choice crowd) by making promises they never intend to keep, yet McG fails to understand that he is among those being duped. The Republican party did nothing for the American people during Bush's reign and left this country in ruins. The Republican party now erects barricades and uses the hate-mongers of the right-wing media to thwart the current administration's attempts to rebuild this nation. They stand by without objection as Limbaugh blasts the party mantra over the air waves: "I hope Obama fails."


Let's face it; the republicans have been duped for so long, they no longer realize they are being duped! Look at all the lies spoken by Bush; "I'm a uniter, not a divider; we don't torture; when we do wiretaps, we get court order; our country is going to see the biggest reconstruction project our country has ever seen (spoken in New Orleans);" and all the lies tied to the Iraq war.

Which initiative introduced by Bush were really conservative ones? We're talking eight years here!

Look at their current leadership; they really don't have one. Most are talk show hosts, and the republicans have become the NO Party.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 12:27 am
The ultra-conservative National Review has posted a copy of its June 22 cover:

http://www.nationalreview.com/

What do you think of the National Review's cover caricature of Sonia Sotomayor?
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 01:35 am
Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Liberalism and Democracy

by Jack LeMoult

You may not know it, but even if you call yourself a conservative Republican, you are probably, in some respects, a liberal. You probably believe in certain fundamental liberal doctrines like freedom of speech, religion, the press, and all of the other freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights. You probably take for granted the right of women to vote, a liberal idea that was not officially recognized in America until adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

Liberalism is not a fixed set of beliefs. It is an evolving attitude that favors individual freedom, concern and compassion for poor and oppressed people, opposition to governmental totalitarianism, opposition to domination of the weak by the powerful, and support for the rights of minorities. Liberalism has always been a progressive movement calling for political freedom, religious freedom, and equality under the law regardless of race, religion, sex, nationality, social class, age, or wealth.

Liberalism in America was influenced by the philosophy of great European thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke, Hume, and Montesquieu. They spoke of the “Rights of Man.” The American Revolution established the first nation based on the concept of liberal government, especially the idea that governments rule by the consent of the governed. When Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams spoke of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” they were echoing John Locke.

The United States is a liberal democracy. Our institutions are based on liberal ideas. Our Revolutionary War was fought on the basis of a liberal document, the Declaration of Independence. The Civil War was fought to free the slaves, a liberal cause. The civil rights movement to end racial segregation was a liberal movement. Liberalism has always been a movement for freedom wedged between the extreme positions of both the left and right

People sometimes confuse liberalism with its opposite, communism. I once had a debate with a communist. He accused liberals of being soft because we believe in the civil liberties and freedoms that Americans hold dear. I told him that communism crushes the human spirit. It attempts to grind men down and make them into what the philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset called “Mass Men.” Liberalism tries to lift men up, to give them the opportunity to realize their individual potential and their uniqueness as human beings.

Classical liberalism stressed freedom of commerce from government intervention. Adam Smith proposed "laissez-faire" capitalism. Modern liberals became skeptical of laissez-faire capitalism, however, when the Industrial Revolution produced the monopolistic aggregation of wealth and power as well as the exploitation and abuse of working people. The Great Depression of the 1930s further shook liberals’ faith in laissez-faire capitalism. Rather than pushing for socialism or communism, however, liberals like Franklin Delano Roosevelt called for government intervention in aid of the economy and governmental regulation of business.

Liberals do not necessarily favor taxation. They realize that a tyrannical government can use taxation as a method of subjugation and repression. In recent times, however, they have favored governmental expenditures in support of domestic programs including programs that help the poor, the elderly, the sick, the unemployed, the disabled, and other similar groups.

Among the most burning issues that separate today’s liberals from conservatives in America are the liberals’ belief in governmental stimulus of the economy, women’s rights, including the right to choose abortion, and the rights of homosexuals, including the right to marry. Liberals support the use of stem-cell research to cure disease, the availability of methods of contraception in addition to abstinence, and the total separation of church and state.

Despite the anger generated by these disputes, I believe that liberals and conservatives in American have far more in common than they realize. Both believe in the democratic institutions and fundamental rights found in our constitution. I will discuss this further in my next commentary about Conservatism.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 07:03 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
What do you think of the National Review's cover caricature of Sonia Sotomayor?

I'm disappointed. I would have expected the National Review to feature a caricature more along the lines of the Frito Bandito.

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 07:07 am
@Debra Law,
After looking at that cover, I find it to be disgusting.
It looks like the National REview tried to avoid showing racism about hispanics by using asian stereotypes.
Thats just as bad, in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
Brand WTF
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 08:49 am
@Debra Law,
I don't see anything wrong with depicting the so called 'wise' angle considering the following.


"The line was almost identical every time:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001. In that speech, she included the phrase "than a white male who hasn't lived that life" at the end, which sparked cries of racism from some Republicans."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 09:09 am
@Brand WTF,
Republicans are good at instilling fear by attacking one quote by a nominee to the supreme court; they fail to look at the "total" person. In addition to all of "that," one supreme court justice does not approve of laws; it takes a majority. What she will bring to the supreme court is another "view" of issues that will be missed by "men," but extremism will not be tolerated by the other judges.

What makes all the criticisms ironic is that she's probably a whole lot smarter than the people criticising her - in all aspects of intelligence and law.

What's the fear? It's the republican play book of saying "no" to everything.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 09:18 am
@Brand WTF,
The cover is vintage National Review which generally uses less-than-attractive caricatures of their subjects, conservative or liberal, as do many other magazines, something I generally don't appreciate no matter who the subject is. So, I don't like the cover, but 'disgusting'? I don't see it that way, and I thank you're right that the analogy points specifically to her "wise Latina woman" remark(s) that have been at the forefront of the news re Sotomayor. And I don't think a stereotype of the "Asian wise person" in a 'Kung-fuish' kind of way is insulting either.

It's kind of like that Danish cartoon caricaturing Mohammed which triggered outrage from the Muslim world. Exaggerated outrage certainly. Or that stupid dead chimpanzee cartoon awhile back that some saw as an out-of-control Congress and some were outraged that it depicted Obama. Or that New Yorker cover of Barack and Michelle Obama in Muslim garb bumping fists. That was good for days of outrage and discussion. Was the Newsweek cover of Sarah Palin intended to be insulting? Some said yes. Some said no.

But I think the fact that a caricature is unattractive can be deemed unnecessary which is how I look at it. It isn't damning.

This NY Times piece sort of puts it all into perspective:

Quote:
March 17, 2008, 6:32 pm
Drawing the Candidates
By Steven Heller
Although caricatures won’t sway an election, they can influence public perception. Through caricatured distortion President Lyndon Johnson, with his elephantine ears and hooked beak, and President Richard Nixon, with his exaggerated five o’clock shadow and witches peak, were made equally buffoonish and demonic. The visual satirist’s time-honored role is to make mountains out of physical molehills, thereby reducing their targets to comical icons, knocking the pomposity right out of them.

Every four years presidential candidates are given satiric makeovers and in this spirit I asked four caricaturist/illustrators to describe the most critical feature needed to achieve the likenesses of John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and whether or not a single pose best defines the candidate.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/14/opinion/12blitt-McC190.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/14/opinion/10blitt-hill190.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/14/opinion/4brodner-McCain-in-Hat533.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/14/opinion/11blitt-bo190.jpg


More here:
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/drawing-the-candidates/







0 Replies
 
Brand WTF
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 09:23 am
@cicerone imposter,
Dems to do it well too, remember.

Her being latina has nothing to do with anything but she shouldn't be referring to herself as wise....it's just self-centered and it's a character flaw. If she'd done it once...no big deal...but on multiple occasions it's a bit of a red flag and needs to be looked into which is what's happening.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 10:06 am
@Brand WTF,
Her being Latina SHOULD have nothing to do with it, but a big deal has been made out of her being the first Latina on the Court as if that should be important. What her race, gender, or ethnicity is should not be important. What should be important is her judicial temperament and track record of being a wise, competent, and capable jurist. But that fact that SHE herself has made an issue of the 'wise Latina woman', it then becomes fair game for a caricature.
Brand WTF
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 10:11 am
@Foxfyre,
Agreed.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 10:15 am
What does 'looked into' mean? You guys know she's going to be confirmed. I would predict that your leaders, well knowing that they themselves can in no way afford to lose the actual 'latina' vote, are going to tread extremeley carefully on this issue; while simultaneously, the 'professional Republican' pundits and writers will continue to fan the flames of racism and some sort of 'anti-white sentiment.'

Cycloptichorn
Brand WTF
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 10:28 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Google 'wise latina' and see how many lead stories she got for that.

It's obvious it will be one of the top issues of the confirmation...which as you say will happen anyway.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 11:07 am
You want to see what I think is offensive? The "Obama Beach" caption on the photo heading this article is offensive. (I couldn't figure out how to copy and post it.)

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/french-get-ready-%E2%80%98obama-beach%E2%80%99
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 11:20 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

You want to see what I think is offensive? The "Obama Beach" caption on the photo heading this article is offensive. (I couldn't figure out how to copy and post it.)



Ehem, why?
(When I was there 15 years ago (50th anniversary), no-one of the veterans and (American) tourists complained about it.
Actually, exactly they were the one taking photos ...)
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 11:21 am
@Walter Hinteler,
And what does any of that have to do with the caption on the photo? I'm pretty sure 15 years ago they weren't calling it "Obama beach".
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 11:30 am
@Foxfyre,
No. It's called the same way as the Netherlands Radio did: Colville-sur-Mer [cimetière militaire américain].

Did you miss what happened there today, some hours ago?
Quote:
(Reuters) Colville-sur-Mer, France - Barack Obama, US president, paid homage to the heroes of D-Day on Saturday, saying their assault on Normandy’s beaches exactly 65 years ago had helped save the world from evil and tyranny.

Addressing stooped, white-haired veterans, Obama said the second world war represented a special moment in history when nations fought together to battle a murderous ideology.
[... ... ...]
Speaking in a giant US military cemetery at Colleville, where 9,387 American soldiers lie, Obama said the war against Nazi Germany laid the way for years of peace and prosperity. ... ... ...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3c70029e-52bc-11de-8461-00144feabdc0.html
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 11:35 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I know why they captioned it that way Walter. But I think captioning a photo of the graves of 9000 Americans as "Obama Beach" is offensive pandering and an insult to the brave men buried there and their families no matter what the context or whether or not Obama was visiting France and no matter what he said.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 11:44 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I know why they captioned it that way Walter. But I think captioning a photo of the graves of 9000 Americans as "Obama Beach" is offensive pandering and an insult to the brave men buried there and their families no matter what the context or whether or not Obama was visiting France and no matter what he said.


Well, it's not offensive to me, but it is stupid. Just a headline some editor thought would be cute.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 07:02:59