55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 05:12 pm
ican711nm wrote:
You are asking me for research, when you ask me to back up my statement. How else can I provide you evidence except by research of and excerpts from Barr's actual statements. I gave a link to those statements, but you want me to research them and excerpt them for you.


If you have to research this to justify your stance, then you didn't have the footing to make the statement to begin with.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 05:22 pm
A failure to be specific, such as Ican's, is usually a sign that the person has no specific instances to point out, and is mostly talking out their ass.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 06:39 pm
I thought that if I held off long enough I'd get additional stupid claims from you both.

I think Barr is less competent than McCain because he:
(1) opposes our military effort in Iraq;
(2) opposes FISA;
(3) is less able to win election over Obama.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 06:47 pm
ican711nm wrote:
I thought that if I held off long enough I'd get additional stupid claims from you both.

I think Barr is less competent than McCain because he:
(1) opposes our military effort in Iraq;
(2) opposes FISA;
(3) is less able to win election over Obama.


You could have just said that to begin with.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 06:50 pm
I still think he's scraping to find any excuse. The first two aren't grounds to label someone incompetent unless you back it up, and the third seems to be more about availability to funding than actual political platform, not an issue of competency.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 10:57 am
American Conservatism in 2008 and Beyond

Quote:

REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service

Jul 29, 2008 11:40 EST

US SEN TED STEVENS INDICTED ON 7 CRIMINAL COUNTS RELATED TO HIS HOLDING OF PUBLIC OFFICE - SOURCE


Things just got way, way worse for the Republicans. The specter of corruption was a killer in 2006, looks like it will be back again in '08!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 12:02 pm
I interrupt this fascinating discussion to briefly interject some thoughts of one American who truly represents modern American Conservative thought.

Like all of us who do or have made some of our livelihood from writing, Thomas Sowell jots down various observations and thoughts as they cross his mind. From time to time those that are unsuitable for or can't be effectively stretched into a book, essay, or syndicated column, he combines into a "Random Thoughts" column. These always include some humor, some provocative observations, and invariably some food for thought from a conservative perspective.

I found much of his offering this week to be especially pertinent:

July 29, 2008

Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene:LINK
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 01:23 pm
McCain was pretty interesting on Larry King last night.

He had more good things to say about Obama than he did about the Bush administration and Congress of the past 7 years.

He sure doesn't get along just to get along.

I have to like that about him.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 01:47 pm
That is one thing I do like about McCain. He is not a conservative's conservative for sure except on two or three issues, and now and then he yields to political expediency just like everybody else, but he is the closest thing we have to an honest man. He says it more as he sees it than he says what he thinks somebody wants to hear. It is because I can trust him on those two or three issues that I will likely hold my nose and vote for him in November.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 07:12 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
That is one thing I do like about McCain. He is not a conservative's conservative for sure except on two or three issues, and now and then he yields to political expediency just like everybody else, but he is the closest thing we have to an honest man. He says it more as he sees it than he says what he thinks somebody wants to hear. It is because I can trust him on those two or three issues that I will likely hold my nose and vote for him in November.


It's amazing that conservatives always get these half, quarter, honest men. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush, a veritable rogue's gallery. Surely, surely, if you dig deep enough, you could find an honest conservative. Then you wouldn't have to hold your nose to vote, nor inflict upon the USA and the world, these morons.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 07:43 pm
JTT wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
That is one thing I do like about McCain. He is not a conservative's conservative for sure except on two or three issues, and now and then he yields to political expediency just like everybody else, but he is the closest thing we have to an honest man. He says it more as he sees it than he says what he thinks somebody wants to hear. It is because I can trust him on those two or three issues that I will likely hold my nose and vote for him in November.


It's amazing that conservatives always get these half, quarter, honest men. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush, a veritable rogue's gallery. Surely, surely, if you dig deep enough, you could find an honest conservative. Then you wouldn't have to hold your nose to vote, nor inflict upon the USA and the world, these morons.

It's predictable that the Democrats will continue to get more of these incompetent, dishonest, distructive men like Carter, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 09:04 pm
ican711nm wrote:
JTT wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
That is one thing I do like about McCain. He is not a conservative's conservative for sure except on two or three issues, and now and then he yields to political expediency just like everybody else, but he is the closest thing we have to an honest man. He says it more as he sees it than he says what he thinks somebody wants to hear. It is because I can trust him on those two or three issues that I will likely hold my nose and vote for him in November.


It's amazing that conservatives always get these half, quarter, honest men. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush, a veritable rogue's gallery. Surely, surely, if you dig deep enough, you could find an honest conservative. Then you wouldn't have to hold your nose to vote, nor inflict upon the USA and the world, these morons.

It's predictable that the Democrats will continue to get more of these incompetent, dishonest, distructive men like Carter, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama.


Conservatives more often than not prosecute their scoundrels and/or send them packing. Liberals, it seems more often than not, re-elect theirs and/or appoint them to sensitive committees.

There are people who post on these boards who can see nothing but bad in the opposition and/or gloat and delight in their stumbles while they can excuse any manner of corruption or evil in their own. For them politics is a game and, if the best interests of the country are in their psyche, they seem to keep that well hidden. Because the mainstream media is also mostly of this kind of mentality, I think our best and brightest no longer seek high office. We have lowered the bar too much while making the price far too high.

I don't have a problem with McCain's honesty per se other than he is a politician. I certainly think his track records suggests more honesty than Obama's track record suggests honesty. My problems with McCain are mostly in those areas where he does not support American Conservative principles and that's where I will have to hold my nose when I vote. I don't have a problem with him in those areas in which he does support American Conservative principles.

I would choose McCain over Obama, because Obama has for the most part no track record of any form of Conservatism of any kind. As Thomas Sowell said:
Quote:
Barack Obama's motto "Change you can believe in" has acquired a new meaning: changing his positions is the only thing you can believe in. His campaign began with a huge change in the image he projects, compared to what he was doing for 20 years before.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 09:28 pm
Where is William Jefferson these days? I haven't heard a word, but I am guessing he is still sitting comfortably in Congress getting a paycheck on our tax money instead of sitting in prison. Do the Dems care about corrupt Democrats. I don't think so.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 09:33 pm
Conservatives tend to expect a much higher standard from their side, so it's much easier for one of them to fail.

Liberals tend to set the bar very low and even when the goal is missed they don't seem to care.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 09:44 pm
To a person with no black and white answers or clear right and wrong, only shades of gray, so no wonder that is what happens. Also, and this is very important, the Democratic Party is the party of social morality, not personal morality. Morality is measured by how much you care about the poor, not what you do personally. Caring about the poor is not whether you personally care about the poor, but how much money you can give the poor by taxing the rich and giving to the poor, using somebody else's money, not your own. And you can be the lyingest, lowdown pathetic cheater of any man alive, but if you care about the poor, as defined above, you are a very moral person.

Also, killing a child in the womb is fine, but killing a murderer is terrible. That is also how a Democrat defines morality. Most Democrats that is. There are many many strange contradictions in liberal morality, but the above provides a sampling.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 09:46 pm
Now guys, don't fall into the trap of their 'whose is blackest' game here. The GOP has had its share of stumbles on ethics and violations. The main difference is the GOP stumbles are always identified as GOP while you have to hunt pretty deep into a story to determine the political affiliation of Democrat stumble if he or she is identified as a Democrat at all.

The point is, Conservatives do believe in holding their crooks and creeps accountable and generally do take the initiative to boot them out or they are pressured to resign. Sometimes I think they do it unfairly just to prove they won't tolerate it.

Meanwhile, the Democrats re-elected William Jefferson to Congress in 2006 despite the heavy allegations hanging over his head. Two of his aides had already pled guilty. He was handed his indictment in 2007. So long as the Democrats remain in power in Congress, I think it is likely there will be no big hurry to complete that process. So, yes, we are still paying his salary plus all the other lucrative perks that go with the job.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 09:53 pm
okie wrote:
To a person with no black and white answers or clear right and wrong, only shades of gray, so no wonder that is what happens. Also, and this is very important, the Democratic Party is the party of social morality, not personal morality. Morality is measured by how much you care about the poor, not what you do personally. Caring about the poor is not whether you personally care about the poor, but how much money you can give the poor by taxing the rich and giving to the poor, using somebody else's money, not your own. And you can be the lyingest, lowdown pathetic cheater of any man alive, but if you care about the poor, as defined above, you are a very moral person.

Also, killing a child in the womb is fine, but killing a murderer is terrible. That is also how a Democrat defines morality. Most Democrats that is. There are many many strange contradictions in liberal morality, but the above provides a sampling.


The dichotomies can be stunning at times, but be careful about drawing blanket analogies without foundation. I think all liberals do not necessarily support no limits of any kind on abortion and some do support the death penalty. And while most liberals do support forced 'social responsibility' for the poor, etc., not all are opposed to personal acountability either.

Even saying that, and meaning it, though, I couldn't help but think Dr. Sowell's comment today belonged on your list, namely:
Quote:
How many in the media have expressed half as much outrage about the beheading of innocent people by terrorists in Iraq as they have about the captured terrorists held at Guantanamo not being treated as nicely as they think they should be?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 10:23 pm
real life wrote:
Conservatives tend to expect a much higher standard from their side, so it's much easier for one of them to fail.


What a crock of sour owl manure! Shall we pull out a list. Okay.


* 1 Senators
* 1.1 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey)
o 1.2 Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
* 2 Representatives
o 2.1 Rep. John Doolittle (R-California) - Retiring
o 2.2 Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Florida)
* 2.3 Rep. Bob Filner (D-California)
* 2.4 Rep. Jane Harman (D-California)
* 2.5 Rep. William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) - Indicted
o 2.6 Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-California)
o 2.7 Rep. Gary Miller (R-California)
* 2.8 Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-West Virginia)
o 2.9 Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pennsylvania)
o 2.10 Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Arizona) - Indicted and Retiring
o 2.11 Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)
3 Former members of Congress
o 3.1 Former Rep. Bob Beauprez (R-Colorado)
o 3.2 Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-California) - Convicted
o 3.3 Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) - Indicted
o 3.4 Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida)
o 3.5 Former Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-Nevada)
o 3.6 Former Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Florida)
o 3.7 Former Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois)
o 3.8 Former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) - Convicted
o 3.9 Former Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pennsylvania)
4 Former investigations regarding members of Congress
o 4.1 Sen. Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico) - Retiring

Score: Republicans 18 Democrats 5

[quote="real life"]
Liberals tend to set the bar very low and even when the goal is missed they don't seem to care.[/quote]

Clearly, there's a bunch of Republican crooks. Now let's see how Repuglicans are as legislators; are they doing the job that they were hired to do?

[quote]
Congress: The Roots of Obstruction

Robert L. Borosage

Like Rodney Dangerfield, this Congress doesn't get much respect. Americans rate it slightly above sludge, but below George Bush, the least admired president in the history of polling. McCain strategists hope to discredit Barack Obama by linking him to Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Progressives shudder as they watch Democrats hand over a blank check to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and rail against the coming collapse on off-shore oil drilling. Republicans chant about the "do-nothing Congress."

But take another look. The reputation of the Congress would be very different had the Republican minority and George Bush not orchestrated a systematic campaign of obstruction to bottle up any progress. For example, majorities in both Houses of Congress voted for:

Setting a date certain to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end, freeing up the $12 billion a month in direct costs (about a billion a day in total) for vital needs here at home;

Saving seniors tens of billions in prescription drug prices by empowering Medicare to negotiate discounts for its bulk purchases;

Investing billions in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, generating green collar jobs, and paying for it by repealing subsidies for oil companies already pocketing the greatest profits in recorded history;

Providing health care for millions of children of working and poor families, giving them with a chance for a healthy start to life;

Insuring that soldiers be guaranteed adequate rest and recovery between deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan;

The Congress also managed to pass the first increase in the minimum wage in a decade, the largest increase in college aid since the GI Bill, and cleaned up its own act a bit. Now this isn't everything, but stopping a bad war, changing our energy policy, caring for the troops and providing more affordable health care to seniors and children isn't a bad start.

What stopped these measures from becoming law was a purposeful and unprecedented "block and blame" obstruction strategy by the Republican minority. In the Senate, Republicans have routinely filibustered every major piece of Democratic legislation. As a report by the Campaign for America's Future which I help direct reveals, this has forced a record number of cloture votes that require a super-majority of sixty votes to end the filibusters. This was reinforced by over 119 veto threats by President Bush(who never issued a veto as the previous Republican congresses ran up record deficits). Majority rule has essentially been repealed.

The strategy hasn't been a secret. Conservatives have openly gloated about it. Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer told Fox News viewers, "I think [Democrats' inability to pass legislation][ will give the Republicans the one opening they are going to have in 2008. Everything is running against the Republicans, but I think they have a chance if they argue that the Democrats have been in charge and they are the do-nothing Congress." Or as former Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss, told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far it's working for us."

Now this is sort of like knee-capping the postman and then complaining that the mail is late. Will Republicans get away with it? As the economy has plummeted, they've started to worry. Recently, Republican Senators up for re-election have started to bail out, moving to help overcome filibusters and veto threats on Medicare funding. Politico reports that GOP leaders are advising vulnerable senators to "get well" with voters by siding with Democrats on everything but energy and national security.

As the economy gets worse, incumbent legislators should be nervous whether in the majority or the minority. But as Republicans posture about the do-nothing Congress, it's worth remembering that much would have gotten done had they not been in the way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/congress-the-roots-of-obs_b_115669.html

[/quote]
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 10:33 pm
Nice Sourcewatch cut and paste JTT. Now if you could post an honest and complete list from a reliable source, that would be appreciated. If you won't, we'll just assume you aren't interested in participating in the discussion and are back to spamming thread with irrelevent information.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 10:41 pm
Quote:

Congress: The Roots of Obstruction

Robert L. Borosage

Like Rodney Dangerfield, this Congress doesn't get much respect. Americans rate it slightly above sludge, but below George Bush, the least admired president in the history of polling. McCain strategists hope to discredit Barack Obama by linking him to Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Progressives shudder as they watch Democrats hand over a blank check to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and rail against the coming collapse on off-shore oil drilling. Republicans chant about the "do-nothing Congress."

But take another look. The reputation of the Congress would be very different had the Republican minority and George Bush not orchestrated a systematic campaign of obstruction to bottle up any progress. For example, majorities in both Houses of Congress voted for:

Setting a date certain to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end, freeing up the $12 billion a month in direct costs (about a billion a day in total) for vital needs here at home;

Saving seniors tens of billions in prescription drug prices by empowering Medicare to negotiate discounts for its bulk purchases;

Investing billions in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, generating green collar jobs, and paying for it by repealing subsidies for oil companies already pocketing the greatest profits in recorded history;

Providing health care for millions of children of working and poor families, giving them with a chance for a healthy start to life;

Insuring that soldiers be guaranteed adequate rest and recovery between deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan;

The Congress also managed to pass the first increase in the minimum wage in a decade, the largest increase in college aid since the GI Bill, and cleaned up its own act a bit. Now this isn't everything, but stopping a bad war, changing our energy policy, caring for the troops and providing more affordable health care to seniors and children isn't a bad start.

What stopped these measures from becoming law was a purposeful and unprecedented "block and blame" obstruction strategy by the Republican minority. In the Senate, Republicans have routinely filibustered every major piece of Democratic legislation. As a report by the Campaign for America's Future which I help direct reveals, this has forced a record number of cloture votes that require a super-majority of sixty votes to end the filibusters. This was reinforced by over 119 veto threats by President Bush(who never issued a veto as the previous Republican congresses ran up record deficits). Majority rule has essentially been repealed.

The strategy hasn't been a secret. Conservatives have openly gloated about it. Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer told Fox News viewers, "I think [Democrats' inability to pass legislation][ will give the Republicans the one opening they are going to have in 2008. Everything is running against the Republicans, but I think they have a chance if they argue that the Democrats have been in charge and they are the do-nothing Congress." Or as former Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss, told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far it's working for us."

Now this is sort of like knee-capping the postman and then complaining that the mail is late. Will Republicans get away with it? As the economy has plummeted, they've started to worry. Recently, Republican Senators up for re-election have started to bail out, moving to help overcome filibusters and veto threats on Medicare funding. Politico reports that GOP leaders are advising vulnerable senators to "get well" with voters by siding with Democrats on everything but energy and national security.

As the economy gets worse, incumbent legislators should be nervous whether in the majority or the minority. But as Republicans posture about the do-nothing Congress, it's worth remembering that much would have gotten done had they not been in the way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/congress-the-roots-of-obs_b_115669.html
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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 09/21/2024 at 05:18:32