Here’s some “news” from the Associated Press:
Scrutiny of Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s travel has led to the belated disclosure of at least 198 previously unreported special interest trips by House members and their aides, including eight years of travel by the second-ranking Democrat, an Associated Press review has found.At least 43 House members and dozens of aides had failed to meet the one-month deadline in ethics rules for disclosing trips financed by organizations outside the U.S. government.
When stories about Tom DeLay’s ethical problems first broke, I was astounded by the liberal media’s naïveté, willful blindness — whatever it was that caused them to focus solely on his lapses. Surely these journalists know they all do it. According to House ethics rules, Members are not supposed to take trips abroad funded by lobbyists, nor are they to accept “gifts.” But they do it all the time. (See Web of Hypocrisy.)
A politician is a politician, and from time to time they all get sloppy or try to find ways to cut corners and fudge the truth. Life would be much easier if we just accepted it. In many ways Republicans are no better than Democrats. That’s one of the reasons I didn’t jump on the “Defend DeLay” bandwagon. I knew some of the media reports about him were true and that politicians wagging their finger in his face had done the same thing. I used to have a knee-jerk habit of defending Republicans whenever an accusation was made, but I no longer waste the energy.
In that regard, I’ll no longer waste energy trying to figure out what’s wrong with George Bush, either. I’ve often said he’s not conservative enough for me. It’s actually worse than that. His “reign” has been disappointing. He squandered four years trying to “compromise” with hard-headed liberals, although Republicans dominate all three branches of government. At first I thought he was playing it cool, lying in wait until he won his second term, at which time he’d turn up the heat and play hard-ball right down the line. But he hasn’t.
While the media attack, he should be running an anti-media campaign and come out swinging, pushing his agenda the same way Democrats would if they were in the majority. But he hasn’t. He seems intimidated by the media even as leftist journalists are being exposed as the not-so-covert Democratic operatives they are. Instead of vehemently defending and supporting his judicial nominees, for example, he lets them dangle in the wind as rabid demagogues compare them to Nazis.
And illegal immigration. What more can I say about that? A president who defines himself by the “war on terror” clearly has no regard for security breaches in his own country as Middle Eastern men jump the border along with Mexicans. Men and women are dying on foreign soil, leaving behind orphans, widows and widowers, but too little is being done on our own soil to fight the war.
While we dopes are being felt up at the airport and our personal items rifled through, illegal aliens are downstairs working on the airplanes! Some of those “Mexicans” are probably Arab terrorists. Who knows? I guess we’ll just have to wait for another plane-missile before we know for sure.
Thanks to George Bush and his drunken-sailor spending, I can’t even brag about the “small government” Republican party anymore. As he tries in vain to appeal to moderates (For what reason?), he’s playing it too close to the middle. But I suppose he’s worried about his legacy, trying to maintain some misguided “spirit of cooperation.” The people who elected him to office did so for a purpose: to push the conservative agenda. So far that purpose has been subverted. As a result, George Bush is ineffective.
A politician by any other name would still stink.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 70 comments }
What more can I say other than, “Amen”?
Double Amen! Triple! Glad to know I’m not the only conservative who thinks this.
La Shawn. Here is a THEORY I believe explains President Bush’s strange behavior. The federal government is bankrupt. There is NOTHING there. If we expell every illegal tomorrow, that seemingly small drop in silly payroll tax will be enough to confirm to all our national insolvency. After 9/11 the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to just about zero. Greenspan has been steadily raising them a quarter point at a time while experts question the need. Why? Because there is NOWHERE to go beyond zero! The terrorists came closer to destroying our very economy than any of us know.
It’s impossible for most of us to even comprehend the size of government obligation today. The feds are going to bail out all the corrupt union pension funds. We taxpayers are paying full retail rent on all federal courthouses we allready own. Where does that money go? To the BIG GOVERNMENT PONZI SCHEME. When I get my yearly social security update it contains a disclaimer that says the fund will be insolvent by the time I retire. Would any private investor invest in such a fund? But WE all are REQUIRED to! The BIG missions of government are mostly UN-successful. They cannot provide basic border security. They cannot provide a real “safety net” as social security is just another shell game. They tell us it would be impossible to deport all the illegals. Their involvement in medicine has so warped the industry that many of us think there is an “Insurance Crisis”! Lack of insurance never killed ANYONE! If medical attention is expensive and inefficient maybe the answer lies with doctors. Not insurance brokers- Another shell game!
As for President Bush taking on the media. I’ll bet that somewhere there lies a hard equation that predicts the outcome of such a move. And that Mr. Rove has run the numbers and decided that the media would win today. This fight is coming, but I believe the President has considered it and found that they still have too much power. I put this theory out there in defense of President Bush. I know how crazy some of the positions you mentioned seem to most of us. But my theory says our President is a good man in a BAD position. If telling the truth to the taxpayers would dissolve faith in our economy, it would probably in fact destroy it! THEN where would we be? I think President Bush has chosen the lesser of two evils.
Count me in.
I would vote for Bush again in a heartbeat, given Al Gore or John Kerry as the alternatives, but that does not stop me from being angry with Bush on all these issues.
I’m planning to be involved in the 2008 White House run, and I’m already pushing for the election of real conservatives to Congress in 2006.
La Shawn – I’m not ready to abandon Dubya just yet. He has accomplished great things in the past five years, and his time isn’t up just yet. Perhaps Bush isn’t the right man for certain domestic concerns – no president is perfect nor satisfies his voters 100% of the time – and his successor will be the one to do all the things that you want. I too have been disappointed in a few things (like the “New Tone” and the lack of an effective illegal immigration plan) but Bush’s positives FAR outweigh his negatives.
I’m a “Dubya Man” and have been since the 2000 GOP convention, and have seen nothing to change my mind. (Unlike Clinton, who I abandoned in his first term and never looked back.)
There was a time that I felt so proud of my President that is was almost strange. Given that I hadn’t felt like that for so many years. When Reagan left we got Bush 1. While I liked him, I didn’t swell with pride at his leadership. Then came Clinton and what I felt ran from ambivalence to shame. I never called him names, though at the end I really loathed the guy, and would have taken a bullet for him… he was my President, elected by Americans. That is our way. GWB took control after 911 and a pride for the man grew as I watched him become an American leader.
Now this. Big Gubment, silence on pressing issues, capitulation on principles and a seeming fear of the media. Dammit W, forget those guys. Bring out the damn Executive Order Pen and start getting some things done. SS, taxes, gubment reform, illegal insurgency into our country… tell us where you stand. Demand an outcome.
I thought that the second term would be kicking asses and taking names, but alas we have bidness as usual.
Given any Dem ‘cept Zel I would still prefer Bush, but my chest isn’ swelling so much anymore and i am starting to feel cheated and chagrined.
Bush = Clinton right
Bush was a compromiser when he was governor of Texas. That’s why some democrats down there supported his bid for president. Also, it’s pretty much impossible to get any true conservative in office because this nation doesn’t want that. Also, there’s no reason for Bush or other powerful politicians to listen to conservatives unless they’re giving tons of money to their campaigns. So all the naysayers and commentators are just sounding off, with little effect.
La Shawn wrote, “At first I thought he was playing it cool, lying in wait until he won his second term, at which time he’d turn up the heat and play hard-ball right down the line.”
I thought similarly. I actually thought naively that he was doing the right thing given the circumstances of a close election and the terrorist attacks to work so closely with Democrats to garner good capital. He has not garnered good capital and it wasn’t due to Bush’s harsh rhetoric or lack of working with them. It was due to the extreme left’s strangehold on the Democrat party.
La Shawn wrote, “As he tries in vain to appeal to moderates (For what reason?), he’s playing it too close to the middle.”
I’m sure you’ve read that I put middle at zero growth in government (allowing for Cost of Living Increases).
Therefore I think that he’s “playing it too close to the left or Democrat party”
#3 wrote, “If we expell every illegal tomorrow, that seemingly small drop in silly payroll tax will be enough to confirm to all our national insolvency.”
Incorrect. This is not opinion. Our federal and state governments spend more on providing services to illegal immigrants than they pay in. Just look at the $750 million (1/100th) of the CA budget that CA spends incarcerating criminals who are illegal immigrants. If you start adding up ALL of the costs:
1) Health Care costs
2) Education Costs
3) Police and Fire costs
4) WIC benefits (I work for this program and know the breakdown here
5) All other programs like WIC
6) Costs of increased usage to our roads and water and electrical systems
You’ll see a clearer picture that illegal immigranst if they pay into the system at all pay so little because they earn much less that they don’t pay enough to make the statement you made. Removing their presence will help our financial picture.
“Bush = Clinton right”
I think Clinton was more effective at politicking than GWB. He did what he wanted no matter what anybody thought. Well, us public anybodies that is.
I think Jeffrey Pelt, in The Hunt for Red October, had it right when he told Jack Ryan: “I’m a politician, which means I’m a cheat and a liar, and when I’m not kissing babies, I’m stealing their lollipops.”
#3 wrote, “After 9/11 the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to just about zero. Greenspan has been steadily raising them a quarter point at a time while experts question the need. Why?”
Answer, because economic activity was very low. There are a few ways to help the economy and lowering the interest rates is one. Raising interest rates helps slow down the economy and keeps inflation in check. When interest rates are high less people buy things on credit and start saving more money to earn the interest. When interest rates are low more people buy things on credit because it’ll cost them less in the long run to not have to pay the interest rates on the borrowed money. When more things are purchased the economy (businesses) does better. Hope that helps.
Yes. After 9/11 the economy took a huge hit with people not wanting to fly, travel, take on any new big purchases (out of fear). There was a need for the federal government to stop any inevitability of a depression with every step like tax rate cuts, low interest rates and large government expenditures and bailout packages. As much as liberals don’t understand the economy and how helpful tax rate reductions are they do not understand that we were already in a recession and 9/11 needed that second set of tax rate reductions and that helped pull us out of the deeper recession that was caused by 9/11.
Liberals to me just about committed treason due to the fact that we were in a time of war digging out of a recession and needed those tax cuts and liberals kept on with the rhetoric that Bush lost x amount of jobs and how can we afford tax cuts when we are fighting a war abroad and blah blah blah. Well. We wouldn’t have had the economic activity that we have today and more people would’ve been suffering financially if the tax rate cuts didn’t happen. When people have more money in their pocket (because the government didn’t take as much) they are able to spend on whatever which helps businesses. People can choose to spend on appliances, movies, furniture, houses or cars or food or whatever. It is just plain common sense but liberals think it is too hard to either 1) understand economics or 2) believe that tax rate reductions help the economy.
# 3 wrote, “But my theory says our President is a good man in a BAD position.”
I agree to a large extent but it doesn’t explain why Bush used the word vigilantes against the minutemen. There are a few other positions that just have me scratching my head because he didn’t have to go there.
Bush needs to stop trying to win the minds and hearts of the opposition and follow LBJ’s example.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/27/AR2005052701259.html?nav=hcmodule
Bak.
I know illegals represent a net loss. But to “the economy” as a whole- as you pointed out. It’s still free money NOW to the govmt. Once govmt is allowed to remain in place while admitting programs like social security are insolvent we have allready given permission for them to take this system to the cleaners.
I don’t think you and I disagree too much. My theory seeks to explain how a good man would make seemingly bad choices. I am suggesting that if we were all made aware of ALL govmt obligations in a straightforward accounting we would rightly conclude that our present demands on govmt are unsustainable.
As for the “vigilantes” comment, I’d say my theory applies. If a govmt needed the pennies collected in payroll taxes from illegals to maintain an illusion of solvency, The President would be forced to side with the illegals. This is one of their talking points. The President taking the side of invaders makes no sense at all- unless the alternative was total economic collapse.
I was merely pointing out there is free money TO the government but there is also a LOSS of money from the government due to expenditures.
You wrote, “I don’t think you and I disagree too much.”
No we don’t.
As for specifically singling out Social Security, I might agree with you that most illegal immigrants aren’t PAID by Social Security (maybe some are) and some illegal immigrants do have witholdings given to Medicare and Social Security, so I might agree with you that part of the social security surplus that is being used by the general fund would be diminished but I think it wouldn’t be diminished that much due to the amount of wages they generally earn.
I just don’t subscribe to the theory that it would lead to total economic collapse. At all.
Amen to the majority here.
Wow, I think just spoke for a lot of conservatives. I too, had great hope for Dubya & took reat pride in his leadership post 9/11, but lately, his stances on immigration & trade have left me disillusioned. I just hope that we will be able to find a good candidate for 2008. Any ideas?
NY Girl wrote, “Any ideas?”
Yep
George Allen. He was a governor of Virginia. I shook his hand and listened to some of his speeches in person. He is a Senator now. He is conservative. He is a good guy!!
I believe he will run in 2008 and has a good chance of winning.
LB,
Yep.
So, since we agree, I guess that makes you “liberal”?
Then, I’m a “conservative”?
By George I think you’re correct.
On my political scale that means you’re near the center if so.
He writes today about what La Shawn wrote about but he applies it to the Republican Senators not Bush. (due to the wimpy bunch of Seven senators that have given the Democrats a virtual majority)
http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/
NY girl,
I would like to Dr. Condoleezza Rice run for President on the GOP ticket in ‘08. Her credentials are impressive, her public service has been impeccable, and she is not a professional politician.
Unfortunately, she has said that she is not running. What a pity – it would be fun watching John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and other white liberal Democrats lecture Condi on how to be black. They tried to slime her during her confirmation hearings and never laid a glove on her.
Sen. George Allen has been mentioned in some of the replies, and he would be a good choice, too. Maybe Rudi Guillani – I don’t know.
I wanted to see Condoleezza Rice run too. But alas, she said no.
Another contender is Mitt Rommey (MBA), his advantage is being a governor and transforming Taxachusetts back into Massachusetts. In the past 1/2 century, Governors (CEOs) have trumped Senators (Political Officers).
We’ll see, but don’t count Condi out.
Romney’s undoing could be his religious affiliation. If my research is correct, he is a member of the Morman Church. I can say for sure that the “Bible-Belt” is not supporting someone of the LDS faith. You’ve got to win down south these days to win it all.
If I’m wrong, I stand corrected.
Chris, that’s true.
However, if a “lapsed” catholic could be a contender, then even a Buddhist could, provided the sense of being all-American shines thru. Don’t forget, he’s a Repub making headway in a democratic bastion, that has to count for some serious points, perhaps more than our current standard bearer.
Like Dubya, he’s a both a businessman & chip off the old block. His father was CEO of American Motors (remember the Pacers & Gremlins
) as well as repeat governor of Michigan. I have no doubt he would carry MI decisively where sKerry just barely got by, thanks to Detroit/Lansing/Grand Rapids.
I’m not promoting him, I just think he has the conservative creditials and compared to Guilliani and other GOP moderates better suited to carry the conservative ball. I think that is the key question for most Southerners — who is more Reaganesque?
As a liberal, I find it funny that conservatives are complaining about the administration. This is what you wanted – and you got it. At no point did I ever believe GWB was as conservative as the right made him out to be. There is nothing in his record – maybe in his rhetoric – but nothing in his record that made him out to be anything more than his daddy’s name. Republicans control the Congress and the White House. But I guess that conservatives won’t be satisfied until America does away with the Presidency and Congress and just nominate Pat Robertson as King. You will definitely get everything you want then.
Yes, yes! That’s what I want! World domination, a one-world global theocracy with Pat Robertson at the helm! My dark, shameful secret has been revealed by a clever liberal blogger!
Oh, woe is me…no, wait…woe is I? Whatever.
Who said anything about Pat Robertson, let alone king? Silly Wabid, tele-evangelists are for the tube pulpit.
Just curious, with sKerry on both sides of every issue, how could he even begin to please you if he were POTUS?
Thank you, James Manning, for providing me with a good laugh. At your expense, of course.
Like I suppose many a conservative, I had hopes that the W fruit fell a bit farther from the Poppy/Barb tree than it turns out to have done.
Not enough.
Well, still 3 1/2 years to sort out the Social Security problem, and hopefully overthrown a few more dictatorships.
And let’s give Dubya these props: he’s really, *REALLY* in the heads of most Dems. That a constant source of comfort.
Cordially…
I think Brendan Miniter pretty much sums up Bush’s problem: misguided “faith’ in appealing to moderates like McCain et al.
Excerpt:
“…What’s changed since 2000 is that it’s become clear that the conservatives have become the Republican establishment by being able to claim credit for almost every ballot-box victory since 1980–including that of Vice President Bush, who in 1988 had the support of the conservative wing, which hoped–futilely, it turned out–that he would continue the Reagan revolution. After Mr. Bush’s 1992 defeat, conservatives took over Congress in 1994, and a moderate Republican lost the presidential race in 1996. No one represents the changing of the guard better than George W. Bush himself, who is now pushing revolutionary conservative ideas in every arena from defense to Social Security to tax reform.
Having come this far, what Mr. McCain and the other Republican Senate “moderates” in last week’s compromise would have the party do is give up on the very principles that is winning elections. All in the name of appealing to the “middle” of the electorate that is already voting for the party…”
Read it all at
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110006757
That and Bush’s dogged insistence on holding out his hand to the MSM/DNC only to be bitten time and time again. I’m beginning to fear that maybe he should get checked for rabies.
Ma’am, you just hit the nail on the head with a 500 pound sledge hammer.
“Republicans control the Congress and the White House. But I guess that conservatives won’t be satisfied until America does away with the Presidency and Congress and just nominate Pat Robertson as King.”
No Jim. We won’t rest until a cure is found for the debilitating mental disorder of Liberalism. It afflicts the lives of so many otherwise common sensed and logical Americans. It surpasses AIDS by far as a threat to worldwide political stability. My personal theory is some people, for whatever the reason, are not able to mature emotionally beyond the age of 21.
I will say one thing, I am glad to see that more people are starting to rub their eyes and wake up from the fog that had settled over this country in the last four years. As a person that just began raising thier political IQ about 5 years ago, I have been amazed at the “unearned” blind support that George Bush has received during his term is office. Now, I was in college during the Clinton years and not paying any attention to politics, so I don’t know if it was like that during his terms but, shouldn’t a person first prove themselves worthy of blind loyalty before they receive it?
In 2004, the second Presidential election that I have participated in, I had to hold my nose and vote against someone instead of voting for someone but, after the election there is still a foul aroma. Where are the Dwight Eisenhower’s, the John F. Kenndy’s, or the Ronald Reagan’s? The kind of leaders that you would vote FOR not against their opponent.
I think my theory still holds true that the current “powers that be” in Washington are merely the right and left wings of a monolithic “political” class that is leading this country down the road of socialism.
James Manning wrote, “This is what you wanted – and you got it.”
This isn’t what “conservatives” wanted. But thanks for trying to think.
We voted for the more conservative of the 2 presidential candidates. That doesn’t mean that everything Bush does is what we wanted. Read and learn.
M. Woodward ridiculously wrote, “blind support that George Bush has received during his term is office.”
He hasn’t gotten blind support. All along the way, conservatives were mystified and questioned why he was writing the education bill with Ted Kennedy and creating another entitlement program (prescription drugs) and creating a workers permit plan for illegal immigrants.
What you mistake is a correction of liberal accusations/lies as blind support. Try learning about the pattern of lies/accusations and then maybe you’ll open your eyes from the fog.
Baklava:
I don’t think personal attacks are necessary. You could ask me to explain more clearly what I mean by blind support, and really you just proved it. The fact that they were mystified as any conservative should have been, they still supported it, which means against their better judgement and the facts before them they supported, voted for, and funded those programs, that is blind support to me. Blinding themselves to facts and their own judgement.
I don’t play the whole liberal\conservative thing if a liberal says that the President is being fiscally irresponsible, does that make it any less true? If a conservative says that the President is doing everything he can to protect the border, does it make it any less false?
I am interested in facts…not accusations, lies, or innuendo…liberal or conservative.
M. Woodward; “I will say one thing, I am glad to see that more people are starting to rub their eyes and wake up from the fog that had settled over this country in the last four years. As a person that just began raising thier political IQ about 5 years ago,…”
Add this site to your continuing education — how does increasing democracy reduce wars and improve the freedom factor:
http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/05/democracies-increase-violence.html
CAUTION: There are a number of charts, complete with sources etc that will demolish everything you thought you knew about peace & freedom. The global trend did not take effect until Reagan struck the blow for freedom. If you don’t want to know the truth, then don’t go there.
Andy:
Thanks for the link. I know one thing about foreign policy…I don’t know enough about it to formulate an opinion on how the President is handling it. I also agree with the facts put forth in the article you referenced…the study I would like to see to and add even more value to those statistics is the success rate of externally imposed democracies as opposed to internal revolutionary type democracies….I’m not even sure if it makes a difference, but it would be interesting to see.
M Woodward untruthfully wrote, “they still supported it”.
Incorrect. We voiced our opinion when Bush did things to the left that we haven’t agreed with.
M. Woodward wrote, “I am interested in facts…not accusations, lies, or innuendo…liberal or conservative.”
I’m waiting for those facts….
You’re new to politics?
Sorry.
I’ll brief you much more adequately next time as Andy has done. I just didn’t understand the accusation that we have blindly supported when it JUST ISN’T TRUE.
More like the left has blindly accused and attacked….. without facts.
I love to debate the issues and policy. You’ll see that maybe soon.
M. Woodward:
Good points. I think that as people in general we tend to sometimes deify elected officials and blind ourselves to their faults. I felt like that about Bill Clinton when I voted for him and he wasn’t a perfect person not did he have perfect policy making. I think people get caught up in the fact that politics is at heart, the art of the deal. In a deal both parties leave the table with some of what they wanted but not all of it.
I visit LBC everyday and read some of the conservative viewpoints railing against Dubya and how he’s soft on immigration (which he is IMHO) and how the Republicans got punk’d on the filibuster spectacle that is the Senate and I guess I don’t understand how reasonably intelligient people couldn’t see this coming anyway. It’s about the art of the deal. Sometimes it’s about a compromise even made slightly under duress. That’s what politicians do.
And ignore Baklava. He’s good for thinking he’s educating folks with his long manifestos and thinking he’s real cute by trying to slip an insult right along with all the big words. Whatever.
Tiffany wrote, “railing against Dubya”
How is this consistent with “blind support”?
I only insist on logic and facts. Liberals like yourselves tend to insult and insinuate and then you don’t like it when we dish back. Yes. I shouldn’t do it. Neither should you.
Baklava:
Why are you taking this so personal? Unless you have a seat in the United States Congress I’m not talking about you…YOUR disagreement won’t stop one bill from passing.
I truthfully wrote, “they still supported it” because both of those bills became law. Support and agreement may be mutual independant of each other, but in order for a bill to become law it needs support not agreement.
Why are you guys taking this personal? Probably because I insist on logic and facts. La Shawn’s writing and everyone else’s was about what we as conservatives view of Bush’s insistence on being a leftist on so many issues. Let’s move on from that episode above.
If you are writing about Republican legislature supporting it then that clarifies alot. Yes. Republicans in general are to the left of center (where conservatives are – some are a little to the right of center). No matter who has been in office for the last 60 years this country has been moving policy wise to the left. Bigger and bigger government, more and more spending and more and more regulations.
While I was still on the frame of mind of conservatives have not blindly supported Bush or the Republicans (because we haven’t – we’ve criticized), I didn’t realize that you were strictly talking about the politicians.
Thanks for the clarification.
Go back and RE-READ dear. I said ‘SOME’ and not ‘ALL’. My statements are based on my observations since coming to visit LBC. My comments were an extension of M. Woodward’s comments, with my comments being about politics in general. I suggest you direct your ‘blind support’ commentary back to him, like you were originally doing.
If you want to toss the ‘liberal’ label at me, that’s fine. Whatever. I’m pro-choice, pro-affirmative action (I would perfer modifications based on socio-economics), anti-gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration type of gal. Call me whatever you like, dear. I’m a big girl, I won’t cry…LOL!!
The fact remains that you can’t make your points most times without insult. Don’t be mad because it’s true.
Re read your post dear. Hypocrisy reeks. Insulting abound.
Let’s call a truce.
So now I’m a hypocrite because of what I believe??? Get real. Actually I’m like a lot of Americans, pretty middle of the road, also read as moderate.
Now one thing I’m not is a dogmatic idealogue.
And the spelling of the word is: REEKS.
OK. That didn’t work.
Hypocrite because of how you talk to others and then you demand others talk to you without insults.
We can move on or dwell. I admit I didn’t talk to you that appropriately. Simply using the liberal tactic goes over your guy’s heads.
I can show you your mispellings all day dear.
I say both of you should MOVE ON. One of you will have to swallow his/her pride and end this tit for tat.
LaShawn,
Baklava started it. He called me a liberal. LMAO!!!
I’ll agree to move on. I probably should just not respond to his posts. Simply read and move on.
Baklava:
I truely don’t believe there is such a thing as a “liberal” or a “conservative”. I think you have people who may think liberally or conservatively on particular subjects, but only idealogues and extremists think a certain way all the time. All of this labelling and generalization of everything into only two options is choking the life out of our Republic.
There was a post last week that I commented on where LaShawn was shocked that I am an ardent supporter of Tom Tancredo and his border reform ideas eventhough she thought I was a more of a moderate liberal because of other posts. I than said that I am a Constitutionalist and Republican (in the dictionary definition of the word, not the political party), but being a Constitutionalist by definition makes me more liberal on social issues because the Constitution says nothing about legislating social issues. I am also very Libertarian in my belief that people should be free to make their own choices in life, provided it does not infringe on others life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Don’t want to wear a seatbelt? Fine, you risk your life in a car accident, but its your life to risk. But you cannot steal, because that affects the pursuit of happiness of the person you stole from.
I guess I said all of that to ask a couple things: What is a “liberal tactic”, is name calling confined to any one group? What causes you classify Tiffany as a liberal? What would you classify me as, and why?
M Woodward wrote, “I truely don’t believe there is such a thing as a “liberal†or a “conservativeâ€. I think you have people who may think liberally or conservatively on particular subjects, but only idealogues and extremists think a certain way all the time”
While I agree with your first point (particular subjects), I disagree with your second point. Conservatism and Liberalism is a moving target. Classical Liberalism is aligned with today’s conservatives and people like Keith Thompson and EverythingIknowiswrong blog write about this.
I’d say that I align almost 95% with today’s (moving target) definition of a conservatives (how we define ourselves). That doesn’t make me or anyone else that agrees with 95% of what conservatives mean an extremist.
Why?
Because there is a LARGE political scale. From -10 (Communism – the most government) to +10 (Anarchy – the least government). Conservatives range anywhere from -2 to +5 and I’d say that’s near the center as compared to liberals which range anywhere from -7 to -2. You may disagree and I respect that.
Your second paragraph reminded me of your post and it also opines how most people think. The funny thing is how the debate is framed. For instance, if the the new legislation sets aside money to pay for or educate people on a certain reproductive option, that would be more government (taking of my money to do something I disagree with). We can call that social freedom but I want government to truly stay out of some of these types of issues (as a conservative) and not take my money when the constitution prescribes what the federal government should spend money on and leaves all others to the states (I’m hoping this appeals to you as a stated constitutionalist).
Your last paragraph asks a question about a pattern that I’ve identified (as a former liberal myself in 1991) and have been trying to demonstrate and show and eradicate to no success.
I believe generally that conservatives tend to be more conservative when they start seeing the facts for what they are and results of policy for what they are as opposed to thinking with emotion and feelings.
For instance: Liberals are well-intentioned and want to help the poor. One way is to adversely affect the economy with another tax (removing money from the private sector) to pay for a new program (on top of the 100 that exist) to give money to the poor. That feels good. Yes ! We solved the problem. Now, conservatives like Thomas Sowell and others will come along and show years later how this has created a dependant class and has not solved the problem and it feeds a catch 22 cycle. The more someone tries to spend government money the more it has to take from the private sector which hurts the economy which puts more people out of work and creates more poor people. Conservatives look at these facts (yet are called mean-spirited by Democrats and liberals) and try to come up with different solutions that will result in helping people who are able-bodied help themselves. Yes. I’m generalizing.
Since 1991, I as a conservative have found a pervasive pattern with liberals. It is a pattern of believing the worst (feeling) about conservatives, accusing this and that person (whether Republican or conservative) of whatever they wish with no basis in fact and speaking untruths or bearing false witness against people. The pattern leads to liberals saying that Bush lied about WMD’s with no relevance in their mind that Clinton, Albright, French/German/British/Russian/American Intelligence long before Bush came into office said much more definatively about Iraq having WMD’s. The pattern leads to liberals saying that Bush has done this or that with this or that bad intention.
This pattern existed before Bush.
This pattern lead people to say in 1995 for 5 months straight that Republicans were cutting Medicare by 270 billion even though that was factually untrue. This was essentially before the Internet and for 5 months Republicans were interviewed by big media and couldn’t get Dan Rather and others (you can check that one) to understand that it wasn’t a cut but an increase of 7% per year for 7 years (more than 49% compounded).
Food for thought. Yes, conservatives level accusations too. But you’ll seem me more often than not defending people like Michelle Malkin, Maggie Gallagher, Armstrong Williams, Ward Connerly, or whoever the latest incorrect accusations are being leveled at at the time. There always is a basic element of truth and certain wrong doing. But it ends up being a huge bit of hypocrasy and blown out of proportion accusation if you look at the facts. I believe you can search La Shawn’s web site for Armstrong posts and my words about what happened.
Baklava:
Extremely well written post…
I agree with a lot of what you are saying especially with welfare.
However, I think that someone’s intentions for carrying out a particular action are fair game because the intent will define the means they will use and the level of committment and sacrifice they will invest in achieving the end. By any means necessary shouldn’t be acceptable.
I’ll end with this…sometimes a person’s actions can speak so loudly that I can’t hear what their mouth is telling me their intentions are.
Baklava/Woodward, the definitive essay written on what you just discussed in #62-64 was written over 160 years ago by Frédéric Bastiat, (1801-1850). Dig this he was a Frenchman, unfortunately today’s French elite have totally ignored his object lesson at their peril. Notwithstanding their NON on the EU constitution, they still don’t get it.
Check it out.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
M. regarding your question in #47, I’d have to defer to Chairman Mao; “It is too early to tell”
Since violence peaked in 1990, I’d say it’ll be at least a generation before we can definitively answer your question, however, the current trend is certainly dramatic, non?
It should go without saying that thinking people will have differences, even within a group identity like conservatism. But on specific issues, my trust goes toward those with strong convictions (strong does not mean radical, btw).
Those I distrust are the ones constantly straddling fences, meandering from one point on the compass to another, never seeming to want to take a stand. I’d rather deal with a strongwilled person of a totally different opinion than try to deal with someone who can’t stand firm on principle.
Andy:
You are right that essay is eerily directly on point!
And those violence trends certainly are dramatic, but having mulled this over for awhile and looked again at the dates…do you think another factor that has added to the dramatic decrease in violence could be the invention and proliferation of nuclear arms?
M. W. That’s a tough one. Every nation has different motives for acquiring nukes. One would have to really get their finger on the pulse of each in order to assess that, political self-justifications notwithstanding.
Take Pakistan & India. They both pursued nukes under socialist eras but now that they have it, they are also now realizing that the true measure of sucess is free-market democracy/economy, not military power. The problem is how to get there from here without destablizing the politics.
Again, I think the primary factor is the USSR/Warsaw Pact disintegration and the resulting cessation of proxy wars of ideology borne by nations to poor to do so on their own. Take Cuba, as long as there was funding, Cuban troops were very active in trouble spots around the world, from nearby islands like Grenada and thruout the S. American continent to the heart of Africa like Angola, Mozambique & SA.
What Reagan did in ratcheting up the arms race is akin to accelerating mortage payments — it costs more in the short run but saves in the long. When you think of realpolitics, the objective is to maintain parity. If Reagan had listened to that, the USSR may well have been around another decade or so coupled with the ever present finger hovering over the launch button (eventually I think the Information Age would have done them in anyway). Anyway, spread Reagan’s budget over 10 years and it would have averaged out in line with preceding budgets.
Make sense?
Andy:
What you are saying makes sense, I guess I was looking at it from the perspective of “mutually assured destruction” causing the superpowers to be more careful in decisions involving armed conflict. More careful descisions leading to fewer large scale armed conflicts.
True, true.
Comments on this entry are closed.