A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Yeah, right -- that's about as far left as anybody could go. The current administraiton hasn't much to brag about and that's why the President's approval rating is down in the dumps. From what kind of policies? They don't look like conservative policies to me. They also don't look like moderate policies. They look more like extremists politices.

Extremist in which direction?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Won't it be fun to see ebrown, edgarblythe, dyslexia, setanta, drewdad, cyclo, anon, joe nation, et al spin like tops to explain how a Dem controlled government are doing God's (or the collective secular) will.

Thats a f*cking joke. Liberals and lefties of all stripes just love to bash their own party, especially if its in government. It's a tradition.

Sure they do nimh.

No Democratic party apologists among the lefties on A2K - right?

I hope I won't have a chance to prove I'm right but we'll see.

Even now, with the perfect enemy image in the White House that you'd expect to mobilise any opposition into closing ranks, almost none of the people you mention actually has much positive to say about the Democratic Party and its hotshots. Thats as much the nature of the beast - lefties being (in)famously critical and anal about all the "right" political positions - as it is to do with the poor quality of the current Democratic leadership. Hillary is famously loathed by Ebrown and opposed for the post of presidency by a bunch of liberals here (Sozobe being particularly articulate about it).

It's easy to snipe at one's party when it is not in power. The present is not a picture of the future. Watch what happens if <gasp> Hilary is elected, and the conservatives on A2K and elsewhere start sniping.

I'd take a bet at any odds that if a Dem is elected President in '08, within months, lefties here will start sniping (probably justifiably) about how (s)he's "selling out" and not achieving anything better than "four more years / of things not getting worse". Thats how leftie country singer Steve Earle put it in the mid-90s, in the Bill Clinton era. Bill was hardly much loved by leftists either, with his welfare reform; it's only in the light of what came after that he has started looking ever better. Things wont be any different now.

For further reference on how liberals will just not "rally behind the flag" at the behest of their party's leader, see Johnson, Lyndon B. (I mean, Dys? Set? Loyal defenders of a party line? Are you quite mad?)

Part of the myth of the independent mind of the liberal.

We'll see. Remember this post and rub my nose in it if I am proven wrong.

0 Replies

Quote:

Can you mention any specific policy, proposal or point of view of Bill Clinton's or John Kerry's that you would consider "extremist"?

Asking, cause I'm surprised - the Kerry election platform was to any standard, as far as I know, clearly to the right of what, say, Mondale campaigned on in '84. So I'm curious what, specifically, you are talking about when you say that the Democrats have gone "far left" in the days of Clinton, Gore and Kerry.

I mean, we are talking about Bill "welfare reform" Clinton, right, Bill "who balanced the budget" Clinton?

I would view all as a part of the 60's and 70's Vietnam war protesting crowd or part of the new liberal Democrat faction that took over the party in the 70's, with all being more sympathetic to socialist causes, and all buy into the more extreme environmental causes. They all believe in government as the best vehicle to solve problems of society. Welfare reform was a Republican idea; Bill only signed onto it when he saw it as something that was going to pass. Besides, Bill is not the true leftist idealogue as Hillary is.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Even now, with the perfect enemy image in the White House that you'd expect to mobilise any opposition into closing ranks, almost none of the people you mention actually has much positive to say about the Democratic Party and its hotshots. Thats as much the nature of the beast - lefties being (in)famously critical and anal about all the "right" political positions - as it is to do with the poor quality of the current Democratic leadership. Hillary is famously loathed by Ebrown and opposed for the post of presidency by a bunch of liberals here (Sozobe being particularly articulate about it).

It's easy to snipe at one's party when it is not in power. The present is not a picture of the future. Watch what happens if <gasp> Hilary is elected, and the conservatives on A2K and elsewhere start sniping.

Odd, I would have said it's even easier to snipe at your party when it IS in power; it's always doing something wrong! It's easy, conversely, I'd say, to be "in solidarity" with your party when it's in opposition, and can just leave it at opposing whatever the enemy comes up with and doesnt need to make any hard choices itself.

Dunno if that difference in perspective between us is representative of a difference between the intuitions of rightwingers/leftists, conservatives/liberals; it might be.

As for waiting for Hillary, why go through the trouble? Why not just look at how the lefties reacted to Bill's policies, when he was still in power? Like, welfare reform?

Bill may look good now in hindsight, compared to Bush, evoking a degree of nostalgia - but at the time, Bill Clinton's DLC-type triangulation hardly met closed-ranks support in the left and to the left of the Democratic Party, where most of A2K liberals reside; just "four more years / of things not getting worse", like Steve Earle sang.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

okie wrote:
I think the Clintons, Kerry, and Gore are extremists that have benefited from the press portraying them as much more moderate than they really are. Many traditionally grounded Democrats are simply unaware of how far left the Democratic Party has gone.

Can you mention any specific policy, proposal or point of view of Bill Clinton's or John Kerry's that you would consider "extremist"?

Asking, cause I'm surprised - the Kerry election platform was to any standard, as far as I know, clearly to the right of what, say, Mondale campaigned on in '84. So I'm curious what, specifically, you are talking about when you say that the Democrats have gone "far left" in the days of Clinton, Gore and Kerry.

I mean, we are talking about Bill "welfare reform" Clinton, right, Bill "who balanced the budget" Clinton?

Just to remind you,
Clinton veto'ed welfare reform two or three times before being forced to sign it,at the threat of a republican override of his veto.

So,while you can give him the credit for it,he did oppose it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Quote:
Can you mention any specific policy, proposal or point of view of Bill Clinton's or John Kerry's that you would consider "extremist"?

Asking, cause I'm surprised - the Kerry election platform was to any standard, as far as I know, clearly to the right of what, say, Mondale campaigned on in '84. So I'm curious what, specifically, you are talking about when you say that the Democrats have gone "far left" in the days of Clinton, Gore and Kerry.

I mean, we are talking about Bill "welfare reform" Clinton, right, Bill "who balanced the budget" Clinton?

I would view all as a part of the 60's and 70's Vietnam war protesting crowd or part of the new liberal Democrat faction that took over the party in the 70's, with all being more sympathetic to socialist causes, and all buy into the more extreme environmental causes. They all believe in government as the best vehicle to solve problems of society. Welfare reform was a Republican idea; Bill only signed onto it when he saw it as something that was going to pass. Besides, Bill is not the true leftist idealogue as Hillary is.

He's not? Oh, good. You know, you had me confused there a bit when, just right above here, you were still writing: "I think the Clintons, Kerry, and Gore are extremists that have benefited from the press portraying them as much more moderate than they really are." (emphasis added)

Specifically, Okie, please be specific. What part of Kerry's or Gore's or Bill Clinton's election platform, what policy or proposal, was "far left" to that of, say, Mondale's program, or Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" policies?

I think you might actually get somewhere on "moral" policies; stands on, say, abortion or - of course - gay marriage. But especially on the "socialist causes" tack, you seem wildly off. Kerry is to the far left of Johnson's Great Society, of Roosevelt's New Deal? Would any Democratic politician now even dare whisper the idea of large-scale government employment programmes for the unemployed like FDR implemented?

Socialistic? Look at taxes.

What did Bill Clinton do on taxes, what "extremist" politics did he implement? He turned back half of Reagan's tax cuts on Top federal income tax rates on regular income. Half. Even at the end of Clinton's two terms, it was significantly lower than under Ford and Nixon.

In fact, after two terms of Clinton, that top tax rate stood at 40%. Under Lyndon Johnson, it stood at between 70% and 91%. Exclamation

But then again, we've already had this exact same discussion, three months ago. You reacted to my point then by, first, philosophizing about poverty and what needs to be done about it (or not) - interesting, but irrelevant - and then simply reiterating your position on today's liberals being on the far left compared to their predecessors without any reference or example to support your argument except for, you know, "If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog, I think its a dog" and "Thats my opinion. Please get over the fact that other people do not always agree with you."

I have no problem getting over you having a different opinion, I'm just still waiting for any kind of specific example that would buttress it.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So,while you can give him the credit for it,he did oppose it.

Well, being yer typical liberal/leftie, I think the welfare reform was a bad, cruel idea. So instead of giving him credit, I would rather mention his giving in on it as an example of how he was a wishy-washy Democrat, typically one of those Democrats that would be considered, at most, a centrist in European politics, centre-right even. Which is why Okie's whole "far left" and "extremist" tack strikes me as bizarre.

(And I'll note that neither Gore nor Kerry ever proposed reverting that welfare reform, so they're not exactly any lefty-er on that count.)

0 Replies

Kerry accusing virtually all soldiers in Vietnam strikes me as pretty extreme. He did the same for Iraq, accusing soldiers of terrorizing women and children. Gore accused Bush of "betraying" America, which strikes me as pretty extreme. I'll bring Howard Dean into it here, with him suggesting that Bush might have known about the specific plot of 911 ahead of time, I think is pretty extreme. Conducting one of the most corrupt administrations in American history, as the Clintons did, strikes me as pretty extreme. Gore believing we are near the "tipping point" of environmental disaster and that the internal combustion engine is the greatest or one of the greatest threats to mankind strikes me as extreme.

Pertaining to specific policies, the Democrats running their party right now cannot really advocate all of what they believe because it would not fly. I've watched them for a good long time now, and I am pretty convinced of their affection for socialism and communism, and they come off as fairly hostile to private enterprise. I think that is very extreme, or to explain it in a different way, about 180 degrees out of phase with what has made the country what it is today; perhaps some of you here do not.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Kerry accusing virtually all soldiers in Vietnam strikes me as pretty extreme.

You mean, back thirty years ago? Cause he sure didnt say anything like that in 2004... you want to be judged on what you said thirty years ago?

I'm not even going into the rest of it ... "Conducting one of the most corrupt administrations in American history", re: the Clintons, is of course total b*llocks (remember how JFK won the elections?), and also rather laughable in the face of the current corruption scandals, which did not have their equal in the 90s. As for the Democratic Party's "affection for socialism and communism", well... I'm glad you don't even pretend you know of any actual part of its platform that would show up that bit.

0 Replies

Quote:

[You mean, back thirty years ago? Cause he sure didnt say anything like that in 2004... you want to be judged on what you said thirty years ago?

Fair enough if I've never disavowed it and I am exhibiting a similar attitude today. Kerry is now out there defending Mary McCarthy, apparently the CIA leaker of classified information, and making some very dumb statements about it. I think that is pretty extreme.

And I wonder about his involvement, as a person now coming out as a close friend of hers claiming her categorical denial was an advisor for Kerry during his campaign.

0 Replies

nimh=
Dunno if that difference in perspective between us is representative of a difference between the intuitions of rightwingers/leftists, conservatives/liberals; it might be.

As for waiting for Hillary, why go through the trouble? Why not just look at how the lefties reacted to Bill's policies, when he was still in power? Like, welfare reform?

Bill may look good now in hindsight, compared to Bush, evoking a degree of nostalgia - but at the time, Bill Clinton's DLC-type triangulation hardly met closed-ranks support in the left and to the left of the Democratic Party, where most of A2K liberals reside; just "four more years / of things not getting worse", like Steve Earle sang.

While some may argue that Bill Clinton was a Liberal in Moderate's clothing, it seems obvious to me that he was perfectly willing to blow with a wind from the Right. It's less surprising to me that the far left might have found fault with him than the right.

Should the Democrats win one or both houses of congress in 2006, it will be seen as a victory for the Pelosi/Reid wing of the party and a Liberal agenda will surely follow, irrespective of whether or not it is in sync with the American people. I will be quite surprised if A2K Liberals not fall into lockstep with this agenda.

If the worse happens, and Hilary becomes president, we should not expect to see any effort to follow a Third Way. Hilarly is a Lefty, through and through.

I would be delighted to find that the Left bashes Hilary as much as the Right but it will not happen. The minute a Right-wing pundit starts slinging arrows at Hil, the Lefties will line up in defense. The same thing has happened with Bush.

0 Replies

Pretty good points Finn, but the difference I see is, Republicans are more independant minded by nature and by philosophy. Democrats are groupies, so they more typically line up behind their leaders, and behind government because they all pretty much love government to solve every problem. I know this is a generalization that is not always true, but I think is a valid characterization nevertheless. Part of the Republicans problem when they are in the majority is their inability to get their platform advanced as much as you would think they should because they don't all vote in lockstep. I support Bush as a person because I think he is a fairly decent person giving his best effort at doing a good job for us, and some of his policies I support because I agree with them, but not all. I defend him in regard to where I think he is unjustly criticized, but I do not defend some other things, such as his federal education spending.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
So,while you can give him the credit for it,he did oppose it.

Well, being yer typical liberal/leftie, I think the welfare reform was a bad, cruel idea. So instead of giving him credit, I would rather mention his giving in on it as an example of how he was a wishy-washy Democrat, typically one of those Democrats that would be considered, at most, a centrist in European politics, centre-right even. Which is why Okie's whole "far left" and "extremist" tack strikes me as bizarre.

(And I'll note that neither Gore nor Kerry ever proposed reverting that welfare reform, so they're not exactly any lefty-er on that count.)

No politician is stupid enough to advertise that he intends to reverse welfare reform. So you have to look at the other indicators: higher taxes, more entitlements, improved benefits, promised programs, etc. You don't have to say your intention is to reverse welfare reform in order to reverse it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Pretty good points Finn, but the difference I see is, Republicans are more independant minded by nature and by philosophy. Democrats are groupies, so they more typically line up behind their leaders, and behind government because they all pretty much love government to solve every problem. I know this is a generalization that is not always true, but I think is a valid characterization nevertheless. Part of the Republicans problem when they are in the majority is their inability to get their platform advanced as much as you would think they should because they don't all vote in lockstep. I support Bush as a person because I think he is a fairly decent person giving his best effort at doing a good job for us, and some of his policies I support because I agree with them, but not all. I defend him in regard to where I think he is unjustly criticized, but I do not defend some other things, such as his federal education spending.

No argument here.

0 Replies

I don't like to think who the Republicans might put out there in 2008. I don't fit the general mold of either Democrat or Republican. After being registered as an Independent most of my life I became very angry about the generals punking out and complaining AFTER their retirement pay and benefits were safe. The have no honor, they are not "officers & gentlemen" and they have been fooling the taxpayers all these years.

I also dislike the obvious dissension in the Republican Party so between the generals and the moderate Republicans I decided to become a Republican a week ago Monday. I joined up.

I would like to see Medicare for all ages not just old people. I believe in a strong military and I like to see the police brutal when a suspect needs it. I don't mind paying taxes to hire more police but it irks me when firemen get raises as a result of riding on the coat tails of cops just because firemen are in public safety. I believe we spend entirely too much on education. I am against pre-kindergarten schools and I don't like day care too much either. Women should stay come, cook, bake, raise children.

I felt sorry for Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara should have been prosecuted, Watergate was fine with me, Nixon was an OK president. I voted for George Wallace.

I only mention this trivia to illustrate how I don't fit the molds.

John McCain will NEVER get the nomination to run as a Republican and there are many Democrats that don't like him either. He can't be trusted.

There is no one out there right now that compares with Bush. I will puke if some one of Bill Frist's flavor ends up getting the Republican nomination. As far as I am concerned the Republicans are void of any decent candidates I would want to see with the rank of Commander and Chief. We are in full baby boomer mode now and there is a shortage of real men with guts. I see lots of men that know how to make money but I see few leaders, few decent honest Americans that will run for President.

But you know? American voters are so fickle that anything can happen. More women vote than men and although women are smarter than men they usually vote for the most good looking Democrat so that right there tells me we will probably have a Democrat as our next President.

But however it is it won't matter too me because I am no longer on the sidelines as an Independent. I am officially Republican as of one week ago Monday. How about that? Cool

0 Replies

I said John McCain can't be trusted. Well I take that back. Let's just say that John McCain cannot be counted upon.

0 Replies

You sound like a reasonable guy. Welcome to the party. I am not happy with everything about Republicans either but think there is no other reasonable option these days. How about George Allen or Mit Romney? I am not a Frist fan. I am not a McCain fan. How can the guy seriously consider being John Kerry's running mate if he is seriously conservative on anything? That was pretty revealing. And his stupid campaign finance reform reveals him as rather naive in my opinion. If push comes to shove, given the choice of McCain or Hillary, perish the thought, I of course would have to be forced to vote for McCain.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

You sound like a reasonable guy. Welcome to the party. I am not happy with everything about Republicans either but think there is no other reasonable option these days. How about George Allen or Mit Romney? I am not a Frist fan. I am not a McCain fan. How can the guy seriously consider being John Kerry's running mate if he is seriously conservative on anything? That was pretty revealing. And his stupid campaign finance reform reveals him as rather naive in my opinion. If push comes to shove, given the choice of McCain or Hillary, perish the thought, I of course would have to be forced to vote for McCain.

Some years ago--can't remember which election and I'm too lazy to look it up--both Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson vied for the Democratic and Republican presidential nomination respectively. Both did pretty well in the early running; I think Robertson actually won the New Hampshire primary.

I remember my husband looking at me and asking: "What do we do if Robertson and Jackson are the choices for president this year?" We didn't have to find out.

There is a distinct possibility that we may have almost as as tough a choice this year. Hillary already has a massive warchest and McCain does have his devotees.

I'm still hoping George Allen is for real, has no serious skeletons in his closet, and will be the dark horse champion for the GOP.

And there is the theory that won't go away that Cheney will step down, Condi Rice will be appointed in his stead which would be an interesting turn of events.

0 Replies

Your post is interesting. Some wandering thoughts here.

How come Jesse Jackson calls himself Reverend? He is clearly more of a politician than a preacher isn't he? As for voting for Pat Robertson, I would have a very difficult time doing that; probably could never bring myself to it, as he may decide that God has told him to go assassinate Hugo Chavez down in Venezuela, and then what else would he come up with?

You say you are "still hoping" there are no skeletons in Allen's closet. Sounds like you think there will be? Of course, if there are any skeletons, or even so much as a "bone chip" in any Republican's closet, you can bet it will be trumpeted from the highest hill. One of the things that caused me to decide Bush must not be too bad of a guy is the fact they could not find anything monumental on him as hard as they tried for years, but ended up having to try to make some stuff up or mis-characterize something in his past.

The theory about Cheney and Rice, first Bush is loyal so it would have to be Cheney that made the decision all by himself, and then Rice would have to change her tune, as she consistently says she has no interest in running. Plus I think it might be interpreted as somewhat of an insult to other contenders that have worked for a few years with this goal in their sights for Bush-Cheney to short circuit the process by helping advance a person like Rice that is relatively new at the game for the obvious reason that they think the party has no chance without having a woman run against Hillary. McCain for example might end up supporting her, but he would probably be pouting for quite a while if somebody like Condi came along and stifled his chances again. He wants to be president very very bad. Too bad for my liking. But really, another possibility, is there any guarantee Condi would win the primarys if your scenario did happen?

And what do you know about Romney, is he a valid contender with good credentials? I don't know much about him.

Last but not least, I am hoping Hillary is way overrated. Yes, the liberals will vote for her, but really she doesn't strike me as very appealing or likeable, rather obnoxious to be honest, and what has she done to deserve any consideration as a serious choice for president? As far as skeletons, they are multiple, but unfortunately the press will ignore them, and people like Rush Limbaugh that will not ignore them will be painted as nutcases, so don't listen to them. Corruption only matters when Republicans are found corrupt. If I've learned anything about the main stream press over the last 15 years, that lesson is burned into my brain.

0 Replies

Okie writes

Quote:

How come Jesse Jackson calls himself Reverend? He is clearly more of a politician than a preacher isn't he? As for voting for Pat Robertson, I would have a very difficult time doing that; probably could never bring myself to it, as he may decide that God has told him to go assassinate Hugo Chavez down in Venezuela, and then what else would he come up with?

Indeed. And Jackson is so ultra leftwing and so dishonest, he could do a lot of damage in four years. We all know a federal program, once its up and running, has a shelf life approximateing granite and I sure don't want the kinds of programs Jackson would push. No way I would vote for him. But if the other candidate was Robertson? Geez, I think I would be trying to organize a massive write in campaign.

Quote:

You say you are "still hoping" there are no skeletons in Allen's closet. Sounds like you think there will be?

Of course there are skeletons. The man has lived a full and active life long enough he couldn't have dodged every problem. Who has? We can just hope there are no BIG skeletons in the closet because you are right that the media hounds will dig out whatever is there. Remember the incident where Ross Perot dynamited a coral reef to provide passage for his yacht? It looked bad. Not bad enough to really hurt him, but its those kinds of things that they dig up.

It's like what American Idol contestant, Bucky Covington, said in his exit interview: if a traffic accident eight years ago was the only dirt they could dig up on him, they weren't looking hard enough. You gotta love that. Smile

Quote:

The theory about Cheney and Rice, first Bush is loyal so it would have to be Cheney that made the decision all by himself, and then Rice would have to change her tune, as she consistently says she has no interest in running. Plus I think it might be interpreted as somewhat of an insult to other contenders that have worked for a few years with this goal in their sights for Bush-Cheney to short circuit the process by helping advance a person like Rice that is relatively new at the game for the obvious reason that they think the party has no chance without having a woman run against Hillary. McCain for example might end up supporting her, but he would probably be pouting for quite a while if somebody like Condi came along and stifled his chances again. He wants to be president very very bad. Too bad for my liking. But really, another possibility, is there any guarantee Condi would win the primarys if your scenario did happen?

Dick Morris is something of a scamp and was thoroughly disgraced in his stint in the Clinton administration. But he has one of the best political instincts I've ever seen. He is on the record that Condi is the ONLY candidate the GOP can put up against Hillary and win. He might change his mind if somebody else puts together a dynamite campaign, but I do pay attention to what Morris says about these things.

Consideration for the feelings of politicians is not a big issue with anybody these days it seems.

And what Condi says now and what Condi would say if she was vice president and being encouraged by Congressional leaders to run along with promises of enough money to do it, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she would change her mind. Is she the best choice? Probably not. But man a campaign between her and Hillary would be a whole lot of fun!

Quote:

And what do you know about Romney, is he a valid contender with good credentials? I don't know much about him.

I don't know much about Romney at this time except that he is a very personable guy. My hopes are still on Allen, however, who seems to have the best Reagan consevative credentials of any possibles at this time.

Quote:

Last but not least, I am hoping Hillary is way overrated. Yes, the liberals will vote for her, but really she doesn't strike me as very appealing or likeable, rather obnoxious to be honest, and what has she done to deserve any consideration as a serious choice for president?

She hasn't done much so far as I'm concerned. But when has that ever made a difference in who gets elected president? The U.S. presidency is just a big American Idol contest anyway. So I don't look for somebody who can 'do' something. I look for somebody who can inspire the people to believe in themselves and positive principles and who will defend and won't sabotage those prinicples important to most of us.

I think that's the best we can do.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know