 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Safety Net - a draw - not going away, but no more than marginal expansions in the cards. Means testing gaining elite acceptance, even among liberals, but the politics dont work |
Not a draw. Conservaties are winning here and liberals aren't fighting too hard to hold on.
quote:
Culture - conservatives lose. Gay rights, feminism, choice (which will undoubtedly survive a reversal of Roe v Wade) etc. On anything which doesnt relate directly or indirectly to economics (responsibility is good) theyve lost. Heck, even when they win (in 2004 terms) they lose (in 1964 terms) faith based solutions will include churches women ministers and priests are routine, charter schools include black power schools, etc. |
Gay marriage may yet be stopped by a Constitutional Amendement. Schools are resegregating at an incredible rate, where they haven't already been completely resegregated. Black in the South face greater hurdles trying to vote than whites do, in some places having been completely disenfranchised again. And the faith based-stuff is noly going to churches allied with conservatives. It's like religious nepotism.
Face it, they're advancing on all fronts, mostly because liberals and moderates are asleep at the wheel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
The GOP is a remarkably ideologically incoherent party, where you have Christian fundies on one hand and staunch libertarians on the other hand; the Dems have much more in common ideologically. Witness, for example, when the AFL-CIO refused to endorse candidates who supported a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
The difference, of course, is party discipline. The GOP (at least, with DeLay and co. at its head) doesn't tolerate dissent, while the Democrats are rife with it. After all, can anyone imagine a Republican Senator campaigning for Kerry (like Zell Miller has for Dear Leader)? One might say that a party with a rigid enforcement apparatus has more power, but I'll take my dissent any day.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rex Little
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kolpo
If that article is right and if the conservatives are indeed winning since 1964 then please answer some questions
-why is spending now higher then in 64 ?(% of gross product I mean)
-why do we now have less war tolerance then in 64? In the vietnam war needed we thousants of dead americans and genocide of entire vilages in order to make the public anti-war. Now in Iraq seems it like hunderds of dead americans and an abuses scandale that does not even come close to what happened in vietnam is enough, the majority now thinks we better had not invaded iraq.
-compare the rights and power of minorities and gays in 64 and now, is this really a conservative victory?
So even while the right is now much better organized and wins much more elections seems it like the USA is still slowely moving to a more liberal nation. |
Absolutely right, kolpo. Based on what's actually happened over the last 3 1/2 years, rather than on rhetoric, this administration doesn't come off as any less liberal than LBJ.
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
now vs 1964
Economic regulation gone. |
Say WHAT??!
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
in 20 years, libertarianism will be the new school of thought, and will be the driving ideas behind politics. |
Boy, I hope you're right, but I'm pessimistic as hell. I've been pushing libertarianism for over 30 years, and have seen little if any progress.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:36
|
|
Just so you all don't totally loose hope, here is how another columnist (and a better known, more respected one too) at the exact same event interpreted things:
quote:
Bush's shaky base
Robert Novak
May 20, 2004
WASHINGTON -- During George W. Bush's keynote address to the 40th anniversary black-tie banquet of the American Conservative Union (ACU) last week, diners rose repeatedly to applaud the president's remarks. But one man kept his seat through the 40-minute oration. It was no liberal interloper but conservative stalwart Donald Devine.
As ACU vice chairman, Devine was privileged to be part of a pre-dinner head-table reception with President Bush. However, Devine chose not to shake hands with the president. Furthermore, he is one of about 20 percent of Republicans that polls classify as not committed to voting for Bush's re-election.
The conventional wisdom portrays the latest Zogby Poll's 81 percent of Republican voters committed to Bush as reflecting extraordinary loyalty to the president by the GOP base. Actually, when nearly one out of five Republicans cannot flatly say they support Bush, that could spell defeat in a closely contested election. When Don Devine is among those one out of five, it signifies that the president's record does not please all conservatives.
In a time of crisis in Iraq, Bush spent more than an hour at the J.W. Marriott Hotel Thursday night to celebrate the ACU's anniversary and woo his conservative base. His speech was crafted to evoke the maximum response from that audience. There was no mention of either "compassionate conservatism" or "no child left behind "
Why, then, did Devine dismiss a consciously conservative speech as "long and boring"? At age 67, Devine has spent a lifetime as a party regular and faithful conservative. I first encountered him some 30 years ago when, as a University of Maryland political science professor, he was adviser and strategist for conservatives in rules fights at Republican national conventions. Directing President Reagan's Office of Personnel Management, he was one senior administration official who took seriously the Reagan Revolution. He was a political adviser in Bob Dole's presidential campaigns and ran himself for Congress and statewide office in Maryland.
So, the question remains: Why would Devine stay seated at the ACU dinner when everybody else was standing and clapping? To begin with, he shares concern with many Republicans about what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and where it is going. Businessmen I have talked to recently exercise limited patience in how long they will tolerate the bloodshed and confusion.
What most bothers Devine and other conservatives is steady growth of government under this Republican president. If Devine's purpose in devoting his life to politics was to limit government's reach, he feels betrayed that Bush has outstripped his liberal predecessors in domestic spending. A study by Brian Riedl for the conservative Heritage Foundation last December showed government spending had exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II. Riedl called it a "colossal expansion of the federal government since 1998."
Curbing this expansion surely has not been on the top of Bush's agenda for much of his time in the White House. Until recently, when a presidential political aide heard conservative complaints about runaway spending, he predictably would point to the partial-birth abortion ban and tax cuts rather than address the grievance. In the last few months, the president's men have talked a better game about spending. Nevertheless, it is too late to satisfy Republicans such as Devine who care deeply about governmental growth.
Bush is also under pressure from his conservative base to speak more clearly and more frequently against same-sex marriage. At the ACU dinner, he drew one of his many standing ovations by declaring: "We stand for institutions like marriage and family, which are the foundations of our society." That was all he said on the subject in a speech that went on at length about the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.
Bush's saving grace for the 2004 election may be John Kerry. In the end, I am sure Don Devine will cast his ballot for George W. Bush, if only because the alternative is noxious. How many of the rest of that 19 percent of non-Bush voting Republicans in the Zogby Poll will fall in line may determine the outcome Nov. 2. That is the importance of Devine's little sit-down strike.
|
Don't despair. Things are shakier than conservatives want to admit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
Odin is almost right - the right rely on greed and fear to motivate people, whether it is fear of criminals, poverty, terrorists or some nameless "other".
The right don't stand for anything other than inequality. That's why they aren't really against government spending, just government spending that helps poor people.
Some people (like Imran) say that conservatism stands for limiting change, but that is such an otiose principle (everyone stands for limiting change to where it will do harm and not doing so where it will help - limiting change for it's own sake is just dumb).
The essence of conservatism is that some people (be they black, poor, women, homosexuals, etc.) do not have interests that count. The left have morality on their side, the right inevitably devolve to "might makes right".
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-05-2004 02:35
. Senators get a big pass compared to House members. You don't and CAN'T have a Delay or other House bosses (like Tip O'Neill) in the Senate.
.
Because Delay has any impact on Specter besides backing another candidate. It'd be like saying Democrat Senators don't get a pass because Zell Miller backed a Republican over a Democrat in a specific race 
. 
.
|