Jump to content

Posting just to may CTM mad. But does it have


Recommended Posts

"Unconscionable" "irresponsible," "vindictive" "inept" "reckless"

 

Who are they talking about?

 

"a socialist"

 

"a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years"

 

"federalization of public schools"

 

"the biggest entitlement since LBJ"

 

"a big-government agenda"

 

Oh, it's just Republicans beating up on Clinton and the Democrats again, right?

 

"You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles"

 

"complete contempt" for democratic processes, torture of detainees, ignoring habeas "corpus and a "vast expansion of the federal government."

 

Oh, wait, crazy liberals saying "Bush Bad" crap."

 

THINK AGAIN.

 

"a new ideology, the ideology of Christian fundamentalism."

 

"He's a socialist in so many respects, a Christian socialist."

 

"If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton"

 

Splitsville?

 

Commentary (to hopefully satisfy the inevitable backlash): A 5% drop in turnout among traditional conservative Republicans (the non-social Reaganites -- see William Buckely) and we could see a big shift at the polls this November. True Reaganites (and you can count Reagan Dems, though that term has lost much of its usefulness), not the social conservatives, are what keep the GOP alive. They are much more likely to disengage than the social conservatives.

 

Moreover, does this add more fuel to the fire that there may be a growing split in the GOP between traditional, neo and religious social conservatives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Unconscionable" "irresponsible," "vindictive" "inept" "reckless"

 

Who are they talking about?

 

"a socialist"

 

"a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years"

 

"federalization of public schools"

 

"the biggest entitlement since LBJ"

 

"a big-government agenda"

 

Oh, it's just Republicans beating up on Clinton and the Democrats again, right?

 

"You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles"

 

"complete contempt" for democratic processes, torture of detainees, ignoring habeas "corpus and a "vast expansion of the federal government."

 

Oh, wait, crazy liberals saying "Bush Bad" crap."

 

THINK AGAIN.

 

"a new ideology, the ideology of Christian fundamentalism."

 

"He's a socialist in so many respects, a Christian socialist."

 

"If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton"

 

Splitsville?

 

Commentary (to hopefully satisfy the inevitable backlash): A 5% drop in turnout among traditional conservative Republicans (the non-social Reaganites -- see William Buckely) and we could see a big shift at the polls this November.  True Reaganites (and you can count Reagan Dems, though that term has lost much of its usefulness), not the social conservatives, are what keep the GOP alive.  They are much more likely to disengage than the social conservatives. 

 

Moreover, does this add more fuel to the fire that there may be a growing split in the GOP between traditional, neo and religious social conservatives?

621076[/snapback]

 

Was wondering when libertarians and fiscal conservatives would actually start balking at the religious "socialist" agenda of the ultra right wing. Church groups have historically through the middle ages and before wanted purse strings to control political agendas, no suprise there, just that business types would stand for it for this long suprised me, guess all those tax cuts got them to giddy and they ignored the spending side of things, hmm!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Unconscionable" "irresponsible," "vindictive" "inept" "reckless"

 

Who are they talking about?

 

"a socialist"

 

"a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years"

 

"federalization of public schools"

 

"the biggest entitlement since LBJ"

 

"a big-government agenda"

 

Oh, it's just Republicans beating up on Clinton and the Democrats again, right?

 

"You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles"

 

"complete contempt" for democratic processes, torture of detainees, ignoring habeas "corpus and a "vast expansion of the federal government."

 

Oh, wait, crazy liberals saying "Bush Bad" crap."

 

THINK AGAIN.

 

"a new ideology, the ideology of Christian fundamentalism."

 

"He's a socialist in so many respects, a Christian socialist."

 

"If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton"

 

Splitsville?

 

Commentary (to hopefully satisfy the inevitable backlash): A 5% drop in turnout among traditional conservative Republicans (the non-social Reaganites -- see William Buckely) and we could see a big shift at the polls this November.  True Reaganites (and you can count Reagan Dems, though that term has lost much of its usefulness), not the social conservatives, are what keep the GOP alive.  They are much more likely to disengage than the social conservatives. 

 

Moreover, does this add more fuel to the fire that there may be a growing split in the GOP between traditional, neo and religious social conservatives?

621076[/snapback]

 

From the article entitled "At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic". Somehow implying that, because it's a conservative forum, everyone there's somehow more informed? :)

 

A good chunk of those phrases are crap. A good many are actually true. A good many I've said before myself. So what?

 

And by the way...I'm not a Republican. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article entitled "At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic".  Somehow implying that, because it's a conservative forum, everyone there's somehow more informed?  :)

 

A good chunk of those phrases are crap.  A good many are actually true.  A good many I've said before myself.  So what? 

 

And by the way...I'm not a Republican.  :P

621176[/snapback]

We'll let it go this time, but

don't let us catch you thinking for yourself again.

Now back to our regular programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article entitled "At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic".  Somehow implying that, because it's a conservative forum, everyone there's somehow more informed?  :)

 

A good chunk of those phrases are crap.  A good many are actually true.  A good many I've said before myself.  So what? 

 

And by the way...I'm not a Republican.  :P

621176[/snapback]

 

I think the point he was trying to make is that a could part of the conservative base no longer supports this administration, which has significant implications for the midterm elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article entitled "At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic".  Somehow implying that, because it's a conservative forum, everyone there's somehow more informed?  :)

 

A good chunk of those phrases are crap.  A good many are actually true.  A good many I've said before myself.  So what? 

 

And by the way...I'm not a Republican.  :P

621176[/snapback]

 

Never said you were a Republican. I simply refer to your apparent aversion to posted articles.

 

Anyway . . . this does matter if you are interested in politics and its effect on you and I. It would seem that someone of your strong opinions would find interest in the ever volatile relationship between President Bush and the "traditional" conservatives and the effect of this possible rift on economic and foreign policy.

 

To me, it is incomprehensable that someone concerned about Iraq (or any matter) will not see how this story could prove influential on future policy. Often it matters little who's right and who's wrong. Instead, if you believe that policy is heavily influenced by politics take a hard look at the influence of the speakers. If the speakers represent a significant political faction, or even more important, are influential in that group, it would be educational to note what they say and how it may change the political landscape.

 

Thus, the first question should be "does it matter what these people say?" In this case, it is my strong opinion that the CATO Institute has great influence on Republican policy and since the two featured speaker's were deeply critical of Bush it can no doubt have a measurable effect on policy (and quite possibly November's election.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was wondering when libertarians and fiscal conservatives would actually start balking at the religious "socialist" agenda of the ultra right wing.

 

 

It would probably be happening a lot faster if the most likely alternative wasn't the socialist agenda of the ultra left wing that has assumed control of the Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would probably be happening a lot faster if the most likely alternative wasn't the socialist agenda of the ultra left wing that has assumed control of the Democrats.

621403[/snapback]

Nice try, not exactly, just the Republicans have managed to keep their riff raff together and are more disciplined. Dems still suffer from fighting themselves as much as fighting GOP, hence why they don't speak with one voice on subjects.

 

This is not very good for them as a party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never said you were a Republican.  I simply refer to your apparent aversion to posted articles.

 

Anyway . . . this does matter if you are interested in politics and its effect on you and I.  It would seem that someone of your strong opinions would find interest in the ever volatile relationship between President Bush and the "traditional" conservatives and the effect of this possible rift on economic and foreign policy. 

 

Actually, I couldn't possibly care less about how political partisans view other political partisans. Good or stupid policy is no less good or stupid because someone who's labelled as agreeing with the president doesn't agree with him.

 

To me, it is incomprehensable that someone concerned about Iraq (or any matter) will not see how this story could prove influential on future policy.  Often it matters little who's right and who's wrong.  Instead, if you believe that policy is heavily influenced by politics take a hard look at the influence of the speakers.  If the speakers represent a significant political faction, or even more important, are influential in that group, it would be educational to note what they say and how it may change the political landscape. 

 

Unfortunately, you're usually right. And I consider it one of this administration's few strengths, the degree to which they outright ignore popular and usually uninformed opinion in the formation of policy. I don't always agree with their policy, mind you (usually - but, as most people seem to forget, I thought the invasion of Iraq was stupid and misguided regardless of the WMD question), but I can respect that their formulation of policy is affected less by popular opinion than it is by geopolitical reality.

 

This, by the way, is almost completely antithetical to the Clinton administration's foreign policy process, and if you read my posts on Clinton foreign policy you'll see it's just about the biggest complaint I have about it - even when I agreed with it. So I'm nothing if not consistent. :)

 

Thus, the first question should be "does it matter what these people say?"  In this case, it is my strong opinion that the CATO Institute has great influence on Republican policy and since the two featured speaker's were deeply critical of Bush it can no doubt have a measurable effect on policy (and quite possibly November's election.)

621381[/snapback]

 

Actually, I think the first question should be "SHOULD it matter what these people say?" Or even "Is it possible that some people's opinions are worth more than others on issues?" (Which I'd answer: hell yes. If 60% of Americans say that Columbia burned up on reentry because of sabotage by evil gnomes, I don't give a sh-- what they think, I want to know what the top NASA engineers think. Similarly, if 60% of American say the invasion of Iraq's "bogged down" at the Karbala Gap, or 60% say that the Katrina relief was screwed up...so what? What do the people who know how to move large masses of resources through hostile terrain in a coherent fashion think. Being able to HAVE an opinion doesn't mean you're right.)

 

And I also have no doubt it'll have a measurable effect on policy...at the very least, come the next presidential election (at the earliest, in this whole legislative vs. executive powers pissing contest going on right now). Doesn't mean I have to like it, and won't B word about it at every turn. The reality is, geopolitics pretty much goes on without much concern over Republican vs. Democrat, and ignoring reality for the sake of partisan politics, as SO many people do (including at the CATO institute) is errant bull sh--.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...