On p 44 of The Economist this week, they have a pretty scathing critique of the Republican Party in the US. It reminded me of a thread a few weeks ago where Joey wanted us to run a correlation analysis of Obama poll results and percent college educated population. Apparently these results held up on election day. Interesting article. As a Democrat, it does feel somewhat satisfying after having been belittled by the Rove/Cheney establishment for the better part of a decade. However, I do know a number of intelligent, informed Republicans and do hope they can put the party back together and place it on a more sensible ground. As much as I like having Democrats in power, I am a little concerned about Democratic overreach.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Interesting article. As a Democrat, it does feel > somewhat satisfying after having been belittled by > the Rove/Cheney establishment for the better part > of a decade. However, I do know a number of > intelligent, informed Republicans You must know all of them
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Interesting article. As a Democrat, it does > feel > > somewhat satisfying after having been belittled > by > > the Rove/Cheney establishment for the better > part > > of a decade. However, I do know a number of > > intelligent, informed Republicans > > > You must know all of them Yeah, but they all voted Obama this time around… Seriously, though, I do think that people like Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley are intelligent conservatives. I don’t agree with them on policy, but I understand the logic that holds their worldview together, and I think it has admirable roots in the liberal (i.e. enlightenment) tradition. By contrast, many of the recent republican races just seem like schoolyard brawls of name calling and mud-slinging. One of the amazing things about the Obama victory is that it shows that one can actually win a campaign these days without descending to the schoolyard mudslinging level. It had been an issue that negative campaigning was so effective that once your opponent started using it on you it was almost impossible not to respond in the same way and still win. By and large, that didn’t happen this time around.
I read the same article this morning…and it’s all very sad but true. (I say this as a Goldwater conservative) The Republican party had a long tradition of being rooted in deep intellectual thought w/ the likes of William F. Buckley, Goldwater, Burke, and Thatcher. This all began to change when Nixon decided upon implementing his “southern strategy” to enlarge the tent in involve new constituencies. This was necessary in order to become a national party, rather than the Rockefeller Northeast party that formed post New Deal…but w/ that new constituency came conditions. Those took shape in a pride in ignorance, and a platform that appealed to people’s worst instincts. Rather that explaining why free markets, free people, and economic liberty was the best route to prosperity, the Republicans have turned into the anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, and the war party. They realized it was easier to scare the shit out of rednecks than it was to educate them on what freedom is, and why gov’t staying out of both their wallet and bedroom was in their best interests. It was bred out of intellectual laziness and lack of conviction in their own beliefs. The kind of trouncing was necessary, and it will lead to a reawakening in the conservative movement. It seems the best way to remind Republicans what they believe in is to boot them out of power every so often. That’s what created the “Contract w/ America”, the Goldwater movement, and Reagan’s presidency. An Obama/Pelosi/Reid gov’t will over-reach…no doubt about it. With this economic climate, and the big Keynesian rhetoric coming out of Washington, excess is a foregone conclusion. Hopefully the Republican movement will recover, find a coherent message (and articulate messenger), and have the organization necessary to provide a suitable alternative when the Democrats follow the lead of every other party that had the luxury of one party rule; trying to buy votes when the idea well runs dry.
Pat Buchanan is not a conservative nor is he smart.
Pat Buchanan is not a conservative nor is he smart.
They’re already talking about destroying 401k plans and forcing everyone to pay into a social security II scheme that pays 3% above inflation. The democrats’ goals have always been to make everyone as dependent as possible to the gov’t teat.
You sure about that, IARdude? I’m a democrat, and that goal certainly never crossed my mind or oriented my attitude to things.
I heard from someone senior in my company that they are looking into eliminating 401K deductions. So basically, what that means is that you cant get a governmental favor to retire 20 years from now because you dont know if we will have enough to eat 2 years from now. THis is F’ed up in a big way. In a bigger way because I dont know if this logic makes sense or not. If you come to think of it we have to fucking get rid of Social Security. But if the stupid idiot public isnt gonna let us get rid of SS then they have to come up with a Plan B which is to destory 401K. You cant have SS and tax deduction on 401K both. We F’ed up big time.
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php
You mean like making fun of John McCain for not being able to type because of the torture he took? or bashing Sarah Palin to no end… Negative campaigning happened whether you like it or not > > One of the amazing things about the Obama victory > is that it shows that one can actually win a > campaign these days without descending to the > schoolyard mudslinging level. It had been an > issue that negative campaigning was so effective > that once your opponent started using it on you it > was almost impossible not to respond in the same > way and still win. By and large, that didn’t > happen this time around.
PeteyPete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax > Breaks > > http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/ > 58.php stop the fear mongering over irrelevant fringe element proposals. there are enough smart guys in the democratic party to handle the loonys - every family has a few. hey look at the republicans - being loony is actually a requirement these days.
PtrainerNY Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You mean like making fun of John McCain for not > being able to type because of the torture he took? No responsible person did that. I was nothing like a John McCain supporter but me and everyone I know honors and respects McCain’s military service and, especially, the way he conducted himself in one of the worst situations anybody can possibly be in. McCain is a hero, a leader, and a great man. But there are still reasons to vote for someone else. > or bashing Sarah Palin to no end… > Sarah Palin is significantly less educated and intelligent than my 17 year old son. She believes among other things that dinsoaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. A person with that level of reality testing as the President of the US could easily be an unbelievable disaster (I suppose it might depend on what you call a dinosaur but this was never adequately addressed). > Negative campaigning happened whether you like it > or not > > > > > > > One of the amazing things about the Obama > victory > > is that it shows that one can actually win a > > campaign these days without descending to the > > schoolyard mudslinging level. It had been an > > issue that negative campaigning was so > effective > > that once your opponent started using it on you > it > > was almost impossible not to respond in the > same > > way and still win. By and large, that didn’t > > happen this time around.
Joey: > No responsible person did that. I was nothing > like a John McCain supporter but me and everyone I > know honors and respects McCain’s military service > and, especially, the way he conducted himself in > one of the worst situations anybody can possibly > be in. McCain is a hero, a leader, and a great > man. But there are still reasons to vote for > someone else. That is fine and good, Joey. But we are talking about the Obama campaign, not you and your friends. It is nice to see you have that image of him, and it is totally correct, but it certainly wasn’t universal. And the fact is, Obama did approve these negative messages, which were seen on both internet and TV. Chadwick- Nothing noble or clean about that. As far as your son, I am sure he is a top notch person as you are. But get back to me when he is Governor of a state and accomplishes some of what Palin has done. She has made some big time flubs, I won’t deny that. But she is accomplished, not as stupid as some imply, and is certainly a good family person. And BTW- I was going to say: It would be hard for someone so stupid to become governor of a state and have 80% approval rating, but I look at the president elect (Obama is very smart indeed), and technically speaking he has less executive experience and accomplishments than Palin and also has a laundry list of past associations to his name. And he made it to the top.
Theo, have you been to Alaska? Its not a terribly diverse or educated population. I love Alaska and Alaskans, heck I’ve got family near Wasilla, but extensive knowledge of international politics or history won’t help you much in that environment.
I think I would like to respond to that, but it’s really old news. I hope that the defeat of McCain/Palin points out the importance of a good education and that Palin gets some of it before she puts her hat back in the ring.
“I hope that the defeat of McCain/Palin points out the importance of a good education and that Palin gets some of it before she puts her hat back in the ring.” Not sure she can do it in just 4 years… (ok, I couldn’t resist) BTW, I don’t recall the Obama campaign making fun of McCain because of not being able to type? PTNY’s comment is the first I’ve heard about this. The fact that something like that somehow came out in the news doesn’t necessarily mean the Obama campaign was behind it. And I’m sure if the Obama campaign was behind it, I’d have learned about that long long ago.
Oh, I agree. If she wants to be any kind of force in the future, she definitely has to get better educated on policy, international affairs, etc. I look forward to Jindal a great deal and think he can go toe to toe with Obama with rhetoric (which really won it for Obama), but Jindal is also brilliant, has great values, and is an impressive candidate. But as far as Palin being called flat out stupid, I don’t really buy that. I just don’t think she was ready for this and certainly needs to be more well rounded in the future. Chadwick- Agree to disagree, but it was a message put out by the Obama campaign “approved by Obama.” Joey- The defeat doesn’t speak as much for Palin. No matter who was VP, McCain had very little shot. I know you would agree that Bush pretty much decimated the party through the last 8 years and the last thing most voters wanted regardless of who was running was an ® next to the president. That was probably the #1 reason. I hope Obama does a great job and I wish him luck, but his extreme left running front has me worried. I assume he will lean a little more towards the center as actual president, hopefully
Theo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > And BTW- I was going to say: It would be hard > for someone so stupid to become governor of a > state and have 80% approval rating Unless that state was Alaska.
> > BTW, I don’t recall the Obama campaign making fun > of McCain because of not being able to type? > PTNY’s comment is the first I’ve heard about > this. There was something to this, but this is a typical Republican cover-up. McCain blurted out something he shouldn’t have that was embarrassing and then when the Democrats started to quote McCain’s own words, the Republicans tried to change the story by making it look like the real reason that McCain doesn’t use the Internet is because of his war injuries. Here’s a link to the interview so you can see exactly what McCain said. A small excerpt from that interview is below. So claiming that the Democrats were being cruel by making light of McCain’s injuries is just silly (and also pretty typical). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13text-mccain.html Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly? Mr. McCain: Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously, everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes. (Mrs. McCain and Ms. Buchanan both interject: “Meagan’s blog!”) Mr. McCain: Excuse me, Meagan’s blog. And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog. Q: But do you go on line for yourself? Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need – including going to my daughter’s blog first, before anything else. Q: Do you use a blackberry or email? Mr. McCain: No