Post #246,665
3/3/06 11:22:01 AM
|

Re: Remember 1973-1974?
The "He's one of us" things confuses me. Is it all just spin by Rove, et al.? Is the political "Conservative Christian" movement that powerful? Or is it just that the electorate was sufficiently evenly divided that he managed to squeak through a couple of times? He's not Conservative in the traditional sense. Starting from the top, the "He's one of us" thing was a major selling point in his campaign. And in that regards he does play well against the like of Kerry and other career politicians, in that he seems like a fairly regular guy. What I always wanted to know is why people where so quick to vote for somebody like that? Bush comes across as a slacker / looser who has a life goal of managing a fast food place and can barely handle his assistant manager posistion. It is, of course, nothing but a campaign selling point. In reality Bush is the rich slacker who hangs around the cigar bar, has a VP of nothing posistion that pays him well but he doesn't care because his trust fund is even bigger, thinks his talent and skill have put him where he is and things poor people could get ahead like he has if they just worked harder. The Christian Conservative movement is very powerful in the US right now, because of two things. First, both Christians and conservatives have more impact on elections then their numbers would suggest because they tend to vote in higher percentage then the population as a whole. But the real reason for their current power is that they have managed to make it the "Christian American" movement in the minds of many people. To the point where many people who agree more with the Democrats on specific posistions vote Republican because they think it is the Christian thing to do. The electors in the US are highly divided as partisanship has been on the rise for some time. This has changed the dynamic for elections, as trying to run to the middle to get moderates doesn't work as well as it used to. Bush has built his success on getting his party base secured*. The Democrats have not done a good job of adjusting to this change well. As for being a traditional conservative, you are right he isn't. In fact if you pay attention to American politics, the traditional conservatives are fed up and are starting to jump ship. Some because of a 'rats on a sinking ship' mentality but also because they have begun to see through his claims of being a conservative. In his first term in office they where so caught up in the 9/11 and war hysteria that they overlooked his other excesses. But this time around it has sunk in that the war in Iraq has been a failure, and more over, an expensive failure and that is something traditional conservatives hate. Plus, while Bush's policy of cutting social government expenses appeals to them, but they have started to notice that he is cutting government income even faster and total expenses is still going up because of military spending. Jay * Plus the Republicans have been doing some questionable stuff designed to interfere with voting by the other party but that isn't an acceptable topic for discussion in the US.
|
Post #246,713
3/3/06 5:24:06 PM
|

Vast oversimplification
and quite possible just plain wrong But the real reason for their current power is that they have managed to make it the "Christian American" movement in the minds of many people. To the point where many people who agree more with the Democrats on specific posistions vote Republican because they think it is the Christian thing to do. At the core of the "family values" debate, the vast majority of Americans have judeo-christian mindsets. So, when the dems talk about "allowing gay marriage", this is immediately rejected by this part of the populace. BUT, if you were to change the term marriage and discuss equal benefits for same sex couples...you would get further. BUT, the dems allowed and flaunted the "gay marriage" thing...with the folks in San Fran making the news and allowing their "fringe" to drive this voting block away. Another part of this was the hammering in the debate of the VPs daughter. It was obviously a staged attack. It offended this block's sensibilities. Not necessarily by bringing out some "kneejerk homophobic response"..but for attacking a mans family to try and gain position. And then there's Mike Moore. Giving him a promiment position in the party workings does nothing to swing opinion of those hoping the dems are closer to center. They aren't looking to vote for anyone because its "the christian thing to do"...their looking to place votes with a party that they think more representative of their ethic...and the dems have blown this lately because of their allowance of the fringe to make such a spectacle of themselves. The Repo side has their lunatic fringe too...but you don't see the head of the southern baptists sitting next to George Sr. at the convention (as an example)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #246,717
3/3/06 6:45:30 PM
|

Quite right about that.
You don't see the head of the southern baptists sitting next to George Sr. at the convention Yeah, they just get invited to the white house to make decisions behind closed doors...
When somebody asks you to trade your freedoms for security, it isn't your security they're talking about.
|
Post #246,720
3/3/06 7:42:24 PM
|

Aside from the fact...
...that you should back these things up when you throw them out there (nudge)...the point is about appearances, as that is generally what you are dealing with during elections.
The dems have failed MASSIVELY in controlling what has been done in their name during the past 2 cycles.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #246,721
3/3/06 8:43:12 PM
|

From my point of view
Bush, Cheney et al are the Republican lunatic fringe.
Yes, I know that they aren't really. But from my point of view they are more extreme than Michael Moore is.
Cheers, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #246,784
3/4/06 11:01:38 AM
|

Bull....
I'll take them one at a time... So, when the dems talk about "allowing gay marriage", this is immediately rejected by this part of the populace. BUT, if you were to change the term marriage and discuss equal benefits for same sex couples...you would get further. BUT, the dems allowed and flaunted the "gay marriage" thing...with the folks in San Fran making the news and allowing their "fringe" to drive this voting block away. First off, dems were NOT pushing gay marriage. A small group was pushing for "gay marriage" through the court system in state courts. However, that did not prevent Republicans and the fair right wing from claiming that it was being pushed by the left. Another part of this was the hammering in the debate of the VPs daughter. It was obviously a staged attack. It offended this block's sensibilities. Not necessarily by bringing out some "kneejerk homophobic response"..but for attacking a mans family to try and gain position. I'll grant you this one. She's a fair target since she is in politics (Cheney's campaign manager), but it was a stupid approach and stupid execution. Whomever was the advisor on that needs to be fired. And then there's Mike Moore. Giving him a promiment position in the party workings does nothing to swing opinion of those hoping the dems are closer to center. Sigh. Michael Moore represents the Democratic party as much as Limbaugh represent the Republican party (and the Liberatians). They aren't looking to vote for anyone because its "the christian thing to do"...their looking to place votes with a party that they think more representative of their ethic...and the dems have blown this lately because of their allowance of the fringe to make such a spectacle of themselves. Actually, what they've allowed to do is for the Republicans to define their values and agenda and are suprised when they come up looking so bad in the eyes of the media and the public. The Repo side has their lunatic fringe too...but you don't see the head of the southern baptists sitting next to George Sr. at the convention (as an example) No, you see Kenny-boy, Scooter Libby, Perle, Delay, Duke Cunningham, and Abramoff all enjoying a night at the Whitehouse. The left hasn't defined their message....and they certainly aren't attacking like they should. (Although, they are slowly learning to improve.)
|
Post #246,786
3/4/06 11:39:06 AM
|

Sigh
And then there's Mike Moore. Giving him a promiment position in the party workings does nothing to swing opinion of those hoping the dems are closer to center.
Sigh. Michael Moore represents the Democratic party as much as Limbaugh represent the Republican party (and the Liberatians).
So why in the hell was he seated next to a former President in a position of prominence at the Convention? I didn't see Rush sitting next to GB Sr, did I? And on the rest...who's responsibility is it to define the message? The Dems have let the message be defined for them. Is it the Republican's fault for being better at politics than the Democrats or is it a Democrat failure. I personally think the Dems are failing. They cannot define their agenda well enough to withstand a campaign. Hell, their leader couldn't define half of his own agenda and had to refer people to a website.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #246,845
3/5/06 8:27:54 AM
|

Well, on one issue we agree....
So why in the hell was he seated next to a former President in a position of prominence at the Convention? I didn't see Rush sitting next to GB Sr, did I? I'm sorry, I don't remember Michael Moore interviewing Clinton or Gore in any of his movies. (Or don't you remember Rush interviewing Cheney on his show?) And on the rest...who's responsibility is it to define the message? The Dems have let the message be defined for them. I agree with you that Democrats have failed to define their message. (Although I think Dean is going to change that).
|
Post #246,861
3/5/06 12:07:21 PM
|

You keep missing the point
So why in the hell was he seated next to a former President in a position of prominence at the Convention? I didn't see Rush sitting next to GB Sr, did I?
I'm sorry, I don't remember Michael Moore interviewing Clinton or Gore in any of his movies.
(Or don't you remember Rush interviewing Cheney on his show?)
Theres a difference that you seem to want to sweep under. If Moore is so damned removed from the agenda, why was he afforded the position of sitting in the leadership box next to a former President? Having Rush interview a vp candidate on his radio show is hardly affording him some position of prominence. Sitting him at the convention where you damned well know all the cameras will be focused IS promotion. So, the Dems promoted Moore's agenda...the Reps used Rush for his strength, which is audience reach...they didn't, however, invite him to the convention and sit him next to daddy (tacitly endorsing all his views). How hard is that to understand that it was a MAJOR campaign error?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #246,893
3/5/06 6:11:12 PM
|

Again, we disagree on this point...
Having Rush interview a vp candidate on his radio show is hardly affording him some position of prominence. Sorry, total disagreement. Cheney has been in hiding since Bush was elected. I think he's giving something like 2 interviews, total. And one is to Rush? And they're NOT promoting Rush's agenda? <mocking Rush's voice> Folks...we have he an administration that has claimed to conservaties...and you know I know conservatives. Now, while they've been claiming to be conservatives and they've been doing a good job mostly and all. But..but..but <banging on the desk> there's something I just don't get folks. First they say they're against an increase in government...but they've increased it larger than any Democrat in history. In history. Then there's this Dubai Port deal. Now I know you people have been with me on this one. And I was very much against it and all. But now I've got the Vice President of the US to help explain to me why this deal is so needed (and improve my rating during sweeps).</mocking Rush's voice> <shrug> How hard is that to understand that it was a MAJOR campaign error? Campaign error? No argument, I wouldn't have put him on the podium. But I'm not claiming that he speaks for the Democratic Party. (I'm not even claiming that Rush speaks for the Republican Party...gasp!)
|
Post #246,921
3/5/06 9:51:59 PM
|

The veep speaks quite a bit
Watch some C-span. Its not all to CNN's Larry King so sometimes it may be hard to follow. No, he's not a blabbermouth and yes he could appear more on Face the Nation..but having a campaign appearance on Rush isn't that big a deal. Unless you think that the Pres candidates appearing on Letterman and Leno makes the same type of statement.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #246,781
3/4/06 10:01:06 AM
|

Reminds me of a commentary by Glenn Greenwald
[link|http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/do-bush-followers-have-political.html|Glenn Greenwald] commentary (via Dan Gillmor's blog). It's long and a little strident (but apparently sincerely so). It covers the morphing of "liberal" and "conservative" in the time of GWB very well: [...]
What it takes to make someone a "conservative" in Bozell's eyes is the same as what is required in the eyes of all Bush followers -- a willingness to support Bush's actions because they are the actions of George Bush.
We see the [link|http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/11.html#a7117|same thing happening] to hard-core conservative Bob Barr due to his criticism of Bush's violations of FISA . Similarly, the minute a Senator with years of conservatism behind them deviates from a Bush decree on a single issue, they are no longer "conservative." George Voinovich [link|http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,FreedomAlliance_042105,00.html|became a "liberal"] the minute he refused to support John Bolton\ufffds nomination; John Sununu is now "liberal" because he did not favor immediate renewal of every single provision of the Patriot Act which Bush demanded, and Senators like Chuck Hagel and John McCain long ago gave up any "conservative" status because of their insistence on forming opinions that occasionally deviate from the decrees from the White House.
People who self-identify as "conservatives" and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That\ufffds because "conservatism" is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as "liberal" is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.
That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is. It is not only the obvious (though significant) [link|http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html|explosion] of [link|http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23352/pub_detail.asp|deficit spending] under this Administration \ufffd and that explosion has occurred far beyond military or 9/11-related spending and extends into almost all arenas of domestic programs as well. Far beyond that is the fact that the core, defining attributes of political conservatism could not be any more foreign to the world view of the Bush follower.
As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives\ufffd vigorous advocacy of states\ufffd rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.
Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.
Indeed, as many Bush followers [link|http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-followers-are-not-conservatives.html|themselves admit], the central belief of the Bush follower's "conservatism" is no longer one that ascribes to a limited federal government -- but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.
We need no oversight of the Federal Government\ufffds eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush\ufffds decrees regarding who is an "enemy combatant" and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush\ufffds ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on U.S. soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good.
The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary "conservative" is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who \ufffd at least thus far \ufffd have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.
[...]
UPDATE: For a glimpse of how actual conservatives quite recently used to think, one should read [link|http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm|this article] at FreeRepublic.com, which decries the dangerous loss of liberty and privacy as a result of the Clinton Administration's use of a "secret court" (something called the "FISA court") which actually enables the Federal Government to eavesdrop on American citizens! Worse -- much worse -- the judicial approval which the Government (used to) obtain for this eavesdropping is in secret, so we don't even know who is being eavesdropped on! How can we possibly trust the Government not to abuse this power if they can obtain warrants in secret?
Conservatives used to consider things like this to be quite disturbing and bad -- and the eavesdropping then was at least with judicial oversight. Now, George Bush is in office, and all of the distrust we used to have of the Federal Government exercising these powers has evaporated, because we trust in George Bush to do what is best for us. He should not just have those powers, but many more, and he should exercise all of them in secret, too, with no "interference" from the courts or Congress.
That is why I say that whatever else these Bush followers are, they are not conservative. (h/t [link|http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/11/233148/167|Stand Strong] and [link|http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/do-bush-followers-have-political.html#c113975024442944523|aarrgghh]). Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #246,796
3/4/06 1:00:06 PM
|

That FreeRepublic link is great
How have the Democrats not picked up on this? Not this article in particular, but the whole issue it describes. What they should do: Find Republicans who had anything to say about FISA under Clinton. Write up choice quotes on posterboards and keep them handy in the House. Get them to defend Bush's wiretapping. Put the quotes up on easels and thank them for supporting your plan to shut down the program.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #246,933
3/5/06 11:44:37 PM
3/5/06 11:46:59 PM
|

Which is to say, yet again -
Indeed , little-Jesus is no epithet, among those now Washed in the Blood of George II.
That is an accurate depiction of todays's theoiconology ... and only language murder can sustain the continuing use of any tag beginning Conserva-, as these troglodytes concentrate even more Wealth at the top; squander.. On Credit! perhaps more than a next generation's -now assured- daily drudgery as,
50-hour-week drones at pizza delivery wages sans reform of the Medical (or Insurance) Industries) with that pizza uniform, and abide the litany of declining services, infrastructure, cuth and .. intelligence.
Californians Arise !!! Secede . . .
Remove our salvageable economy from this 100% mort-gaged floating crap game - from this suppurating garbage scow and its crew of sanctimonius twits, in their race to the bottom.
tpoy
(or at least, do fucking Something, you bleating consuming sheep!)

Edited by Ashton
March 5, 2006, 11:46:59 PM EST
|
Post #246,983
3/6/06 10:17:34 AM
3/6/06 10:18:12 AM
|

Given that definition of "liberal"...
...we should sweep the next election that is framed fully on any so-called liberal/conservative schism!
Bring it on!
34% and falling....
jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration

Edited by jb4
March 6, 2006, 10:18:12 AM EST
|
Post #247,001
3/6/06 1:01:12 PM
|

Brilliant article
A brilliant article, one that cuts right to the core of what is wrong with much of the right wing in the US now.
The only thing I would add is that this really didn't start with Bush, it started with Clinton. There has always been an undercurrent of personal dislike between the parties, that is natural. But while Bill was in office the entire right coalesced around it. No longer did the conservatives and right wing oppose the president because they disagreed with his politcs, they opposed the president because the hated him personally.
When a Republican was elected this reversed, and they embraced him on personal level. No longer was being Republican, conservative or even right wing defined by political posistion, it was defined by support for the president.
Why this happened is a more complex issue, there are a lot of things that fed into this. Off the top of my head I can see Bill's carefully triangulated politics leaving little for the right to object to politically, the growing synergy between the conservatives and the religious right, Bill's personal popularity leading to frustration on the right, the money that was feed into the right for the purpose of bringing Clinton down rather then building up the right, the growing seperation between Republicans on Congress and the right wing politcal movements, and a rise in press based on sparking controvery rather then informing anybody.
Jay
|