| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| The other night Colbert called him "My favorite Republican." |
That is right. That is how many Democrats are starting to characterize centrist Democrats.
Funny how they do not recognize that they themselves have been drifting far to the left since 2000, when the Democrats actually ran Lieberman for Vice-President, and were glad to have him.
In any case, this trend does not bode well at all for the Democrats in 2008. I, for one, have always been a registered Democrat and mostly voted along party lines. But I'm not going to do that anymore, as I find myself increasingly in disagreement with many Democrats, who I simply find suffering a kind of antiBush hysteria. Lately, I have more in common with centrist Republicans and Independents now former Democrats like Lieberman, who, if I voted in Conn., would get my vote this fall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Lately, I have more in common with centrist Republicans and Independents now former Democrats like Lieberman, who, if I voted in Conn., would get my vote this fall. |
Too bad their influence on the national level is still insignificant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is probably, and unfortunately, much truth to that.
At the very least, though, with some of us former supporters splintering away from the Democratic Party and going Independent, the new increasingly radical-left Democratic Party will have even less votes than it did in 2000 and 2004, ensuring that either a moderate Republican (hopeful but not likely) or a so-called Neocon Republican, or some behind-the-scenes alliance or coalition between one or more of these groups (Independents, moderate Republicans, and Neocon Republicans, that is) -- will gain control of Congress secure the White House in 2008 -- and either case, it seems to me, is preferable to having one of Michael Moore's disciples sitting in the Oval Office...
Maybe -- yes, this may be wishful thinking -- we are even seeing a shift away from the two-party system that has dominated American politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No, what you are seeing is a split between the hard left and the moderates in the Democratic Party.Why do you think that after that idiot Carter got his clock cleaned it took 12 years for the Demos to retake the White House? And even then, it only because Perot peeled of enough support from Bush to put Clinton in the office. And what happened when Bill ( Can't keep it in his pants) Clinton tried to push the country hard left during his first two years in office?The Republicans retook the House for the first time in 50 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill (can't keep it in his pants) Clinton > George (can't keep it in the black) Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| And what happened when...Clinton tried to push the country hard left during his first two years in office? The Republicans retook the House for the first time in 50 years. |
He entered the Oval Office with a few radical items on his agenda, no doubt (e.g., gays in the military, universal health care).
Clinton also, as you point out, has at least one or two strikes against him with respect to his moral authority to lead the U.S. Besides Monica, he also got hit (unfairly, but life is unfair) with Waco and Somalia, both of which caused some to question his competency as President and Commander-in-Chief.
However, even before the Republican victory in 1994 took and then quickly fizzled because it was led by hard-liners -- and in Gingrich's case, a hard-liners mother -- that is, after meeting with Powell rather early in his first administration, Clinton moderated his views and agenda. He sincerely moderated his views and agenda. For the most part, he matured into the office rather quickly, then.
That, more than anything else, accounts for his victory in 1996, after which, he even appointed a Republican as SecDef.
The key to his success was moderation and, indeed, actual compromise. This is the art of politics; not Michael Moore-style sneering.
Today's mostly churlish Democrats (and Republicans) might be well advised to keep such lessons in mind -- that is, if they were actually listening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Bill (can't keep it in his pants) Clinton > George (can't keep it in the black) Bush |
What is the reason for the US deficit?
The recession stated before Bush came to office. A slow economy = less tax revenue
The stock market stated before Bush came to office = Less capital gains taxes = Less Tax revenue
9-11 was planned before Bush came to office = Damage to the US economy + the costs of the war on terror.
World wide oil demand has gone up a lot since Bush came to office. You can't blame him for India and China using more oil.
High oil prices = a major drain on the US economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Bill (can't keep it in his pants) Clinton > George (can't keep it in the black) Bush |
What is the reason for the US deficit?
The recession stated before Bush came to office. A slow economy = less tax revenue
The stock market stated before Bush came to office = Less capital gains taxes = Less Tax revenue
9-11 was planned before Bush came to office = Damage to the US economy + the costs of the war on terror.
World wide oil demand has gone up a lot since Bush came to office. You can't blame him for India and China using more oil.
High oil prices = a major drain on the US economy. |
Less taxes = less tax revenue
Useless war = less money
Joo, if you were President the budget would be better off. It takes a certain skill to do things just the way Bush has. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I opposed Bush's tax cuts -( the safe thing is just pay down debt) but there are a lot of smart people who would say that lower taxes lead to increase productivity.
Useless war. Well the US was in a bad situation before 9-11 and Saddam wasn't going away. And the mideast was bad enough before 9-11 that 9-11 happend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lieberman lost enormous points with me during the 2004 election as well. Its no real surprise that Connecticut doesn't support him after that one.
I would have been more surprised if they had. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Clinton also, as you point out, has at least one or two strikes against him with respect to his moral authority to lead the U.S. Besides Monica, he also got hit (unfairly, but life is unfair) with Waco and Somalia, both of which caused some to question his competency as President and Commander-in-Chief. |
You know what Clinton was excellent at?
Disaster relief.
---------------
I welcome Lieberman getting kicked out of the Democratic Party. I don't think that it represents a watering down in moderation, I just think he doesn't represent his constituency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
Less taxes = less tax revenue
Useless war = less money... |
I disagree with Joo's apparent attempt to blame Clinton for "the economy." But what you say here is absurdly simplistic.
The U.S. economy is far too complex for this kind of sloganizing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
Less taxes = less tax revenue
Useless war = less money... |
I disagree with Joo's apparent attempt to blame Clinton for "the economy." But what you say here is absurdly simplistic.
The U.S. economy is far too complex for this kind of sloganizing. |
Okay, let's add another one.
Veto a spending bill from time to time = slightly more restraint when doling out pork |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Clinton did balance the budget BY GUTTING THE US MILITARY. Then when we needed it, it wasn't there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How about "the economy seems to move mostly of its own accord and even economists are not entirely certain how it works, and, therefore, in spite of the claims to fame and bitter partisan attacks we see in the media and in election years, presidents are just as much along for the ride as the rest of us"...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
