Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The word “Liberal” has been turned into a swear word for Republicans. The same way “Nazis” describes the Right.

It is not that strange. You need a simple idea to rally your followers around. “Liberals” has enough of a vague meaning that it can be anything for everybody. It is a very effective tool to blind and enslave your people. By demonizing Liberals, you force people to become Conservatives.

You also succeed in stamping out rebellion in your Party. McCain, for example, has been called Liberal.

Many people have done this before. The most famous is Germany, 1930s.

Republicans have great role models.

Posted by: Aldous at June 21, 2005 09:05 PM

It’s quite evident from the above posts, that you just don’t get it…You complain about the name calling and yet it is engaged in to describe Republicans. Keep it up, you’ll continue to drive people from your party to the Republicans. Place blame as much as possible and offer no solutions. Try to stop everything for political reasons. Assume that all conservatives are the same.

Good luck with that…

Posted by: Discerner at June 21, 2005 09:30 PM

Nazis believed in government control and regulation of everything. The government planned the economy. It determined what was fair. Hitler didn’t eat red meat. He loved animals. The only reason that Nazism is identified with the right is because of an erroneous linear idea that things move from left to right. I think Stephen wrote about this.

Liberalism is a term with many meanings to many different people. I have heard the dictionary definition, but that doesn’t explain it. The American version of liberalism that we identify today developed during the 1960s and 1970s. It emphasized things like group preference (affirmative action), government regulation and a distrust of markets, the war on poverty, hostility to the military and identity (racial, ethnic, gender) politics. These are the things conservatives dislike. It is not liberalism per se.

I have affirmed my admiration for “liberals” such as Roosevelt, Truman and John Kennedy. My belief is that things went to hell for liberals in the 1960s. The reason was two big events and their ramifications. The Kennedy assassination, propelled Johnson to a bigger mandate than he ever could have otherwise achieved. Johnson overreached. Vietnam pushed liberals in an anti-military (and – my opinion only – an anti-American direction). These were moves is very much a wrong direction.

In 1960, most Americans, even most Republicans, were liberal. Today most Americans, maybe even most Democrats, are not. I don’t think Americans have changed that much. I think that liberalism is what changed. Americans will not “return” to the liberalism of 1970, but they accept a return to the real roots.

Posted by: jack at June 21, 2005 09:34 PM

I think the logic behind your “banning” was the fact that you made the unfair connection between the Republican and Nazi parties. Instead of proposing ideas that could promote cooperation between the Republicans and so-called liberals, you resorted to name calling in the same way that they do. If this practice continues, this country will continue to go nowhere.

Posted by: bob at June 21, 2005 09:50 PM

Unfair connection between nazi parties and republicans? There was only one Nazi party and the GOP is not that, however there were many fascist parites and the GOP is certainly that. Fascist is the combination of corporations and government, what is more GOP than that?

Liberal was pretty acceptable to all until Ronald Reagon in the 1980’s destroyed the principles of conservatism. The pillers of the GOP until then were balanced budget, smaller government, less governmental interference in private life and no foreigh interventions. What happened?

Posted by: Craig at June 21, 2005 10:00 PM

Just once, I’d like to see a sane discussion about the issues, that didn’t include the words “liberal” and “conservative” at all. I’ve participated in several discussions here recently about Guantanamo Bay, and they all boiled down to three things:

- “conservatives” telling me what the “liberals” thought (and why they hate America),
- “liberals” telling me what “conservatives” thought (and how they’re destroying America),
- a bunch of name-calling that referenced Nazis and Communists.

I’ll admit it — Democrats are more like Communists than Republicans are, and Republicans are more like Nazis than Democrats are. But, in the grand scheme of things, Democrats and Republicans have more in common with each other than with the Commies or Nazis. Comparisons which claim otherwise are generally attempts to prey on fear, and not to logically argue an issue.

But, since we’re here, could some of the self-proclaimed liberals here define for us just what THEY mean when they use the word? As a moderate independent, I get confused sometimes. (Having to pull more than one lever is hard work!) :-)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 21, 2005 10:12 PM

I never called Republicans Nazis. However, there is a distinct similarity of method between the two. The demonization of Liberals, Gays and Immigrants. The deliberate targeting of a minority group. The use of Christianity and Conservatism. The changing of established Laws.

If you ever bothered to read some of the speeches and literature of the Nazi Party, you will see that they do sound like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

Would you like some quotations?

Posted by: Aldous at June 21, 2005 10:15 PM

Stephen, I’m not sure why some conservatives I meet on other blogs insist on calling me a liberal commie, or why they send the occaisional blanket death threat to all liberals, but I think it needs to stop.

Posted by: Zeek at June 21, 2005 10:26 PM

Aldous

I don’t doubt that you have quotes from Nazis that you believe are parallel to what conservatives think. But since on many occasions you have demonstrated - at best - a cartoon version of what conservatives believe, I don’t think there is much use in them. It will prove the circular argument.

If conservatives I know were like those you describe, I wouldn’t like them either.

Posted by: jack at June 21, 2005 10:27 PM

Okay, Just one name-calling episode: hackerx - you’re an idiot.

Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system…..

Most people that I know are neither Republican nor Democrat, liberal nor conservative but an interesting mix of ideas, beliefs, concerns, opinions, and thoughts. God may or may not be part of the mix, usually people are not comfortable putting personal beliefs out there for comment or ridicule. Education may contribute but I’ve heard some really educated people make some of the dumbest comments, arguments and comparisons. I’ve also seen insightful, profound comments made by people who could hardly put two words together properly.

America is a melting pot. Even before we were a nation, we were different from the rest of the world. That’s a good thing folks. If we wanted to be France or Germany, we would have thier governments. Does anyone out there think that would be better? Really? How about Russia? or Denmark? Like I’ve heard before, “we may have problems but it’s still the best place on Earth”. That is something I believe with all my heart.

And I’ll bet you can’t tell whether I’m Republican, Democrat, Liberal or Conservative.

Well, maybe you can.

Posted by: Jennifer at June 21, 2005 10:40 PM

why dont people like me?

Posted by: zeek at June 21, 2005 10:53 PM

hackerx:

I do not believe you are contributing to the discussion. Some of us are here looking for perspective from the other side. You’re posts are not helping.

Posted by: Aldous at June 21, 2005 10:55 PM

I do not think that Republicans per se object to Liberals and the Liberal way of life any more than the Liberals object to Republicans, their views and way of life.

As long as we have two distinct parties and even more finite divisions within those parties we are going to have controversey.

Even the more astute observers cannot in all honesty hold the present administration responsible for the incredibly wide variety of things that are “wrong” in the country/world today.

Sure there are the blatently obvious war, abortion, gay rights, stem cell,(just to mention a few) etc. issues at the forefront of daily discussions but, there are a myriad of issues that have existed and/or been building for decades and, some that are well outside party lines but are attributed to the Conservatives.

When the Democarats/Liberals regain control of the White House, and they will, it will be their turn so to speak to address the seemingly endless number of concerns they now have.

The more Liberal among us can prove their points quite easilly because they have history to call upon for reference.

I suggest that for arguments/discussions sake it is very difficult for us Conservatives to endure the continual Democrat/Liberal “dart throwing” of administration shortcomings.

To compound matters, lately these threads have contained far too much critique of the messenger (I have done my share) and not enough of the message.

Moreover there are individuals who’s posts are often thrown out as “bait” in order to elicit a sharp response. There are some who post in support of liberal views then in the very next post do a complete turnaround and support conservative views.

Posted by: steve smith at June 21, 2005 10:55 PM

jack:

What is a Conservative anyway? How would YOU describe a Conservative?

Posted by: Aldous at June 21, 2005 10:57 PM

Aldous,

“I never called Republicans Nazis. However, there is a distinct similarity of method between the two. The demonization of Liberals, Gays and Immigrants. The deliberate targeting of a minority group. The use of Christianity and Conservatism. The changing of established Laws.”

All very true… but, to be fair, consider the comparison of the Democrats to the Soviets. Both demonize corporations and the wealthy. Both advocate a redistribution of wealth to the working class. Both show disdain for organized religion. Both promote the centralization of power in a national government, and away from local governments.

Now consider how both the Democrats and Republicans differ from the Soviets and Nazis. Neither promotes genocide. Neither attempts to expand the borders of our nation to assimilate our neighbors. Neither executes generals who fail to win battles.

And, perhaps most importantly, neither is attempting to shut down this ‘blog for “revolutionary” discourse.

Although something tells me that the Dems, Reps, Sovs, and Nazis would probably ALL agree to this post:

hackerx has a problem with hackerx

he needs banned

:-)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 21, 2005 11:00 PM

I like you zeek.

Posted by: Rocky at June 21, 2005 11:01 PM

Hackerx, please stop acting like a spoilt teenage brat and go find something better to spend your time with. If this were my website, I’d have blocked your username by now and would be bombing your real IP address. But I think the Watchblog Manager has better things to do with his time.

On topic - Wall Street had a great article today by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge: “Cheer Up Conservatives, You’re Still Winning!” Some highlights:

Last November, American conservatives were full of grand visions of a permanent revolution, with spending brought back under control, Social Security privatized, conservatives filling the federal bench, and a great depression visited on the lawsuit industry. Six months later, listening to conservatives is as uplifting as reading William Styron’s “Darkness Visible.” Larry Kudlow bemoans “the dreariest political spring.” John Derbyshire worries about the “twilight of conservatism” as the Republicans go the way of Britain’s Tories. For Pat Buchanan “the conservative movement has passed into history” — much as, some would say, Mr. Buchanan himself has done.

The biggest advantage of all for conservatives is that they have a lock on the American dream… America is famously an idea more than a geographical expression, and that idea seems to be the province of the right. A recent Pew Research Center Survey, “Beyond Red vs. Blue,” shows that the Republicans are more optimistic, convinced that the future will be better than the past and that they can determine their own futures. Democrats, on the other hand, have a European belief that “fate,” or, in modern parlance, social circumstances, determines people’s lot in life… pragmatic dreamers look ever more Republican.

If this site doesn’t get shut down again (by hackerx this time) I’ll reprint and post a link to the full article later.

Posted by: Gandhi at June 21, 2005 11:03 PM

im gonna drop my pants and let it out

im a “conservative”
my basic defintion of the word would be
someone who likes the way the country has been run in the past, and doesnt want everything changed.

it has nothing to do with race sex education religion income or geography.

it is more based on core beliefs.(i can go into my beliefs further if anyone wants to have a true discussion about this) and your life experiances.

that is a very big over simplification but its a start.

Posted by: true conservative at June 21, 2005 11:19 PM

[Some of d.a.n’s comments have been removed for using WB as a billboard for his own site. Such activity is not permitted here. - WatchBlog Manager —]

Posted by: d.a.n at June 21, 2005 11:26 PM

Sorry jimmie,
You’re not the only one on this thread.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 21, 2005 11:40 PM

jimmie, why won’t it work ?

Posted by: d.a.n at June 21, 2005 11:43 PM

My motivation for this post is really that I’m sick of politics being about politics.

A little explanation is in order for that: All modes of thought can be turned on themselves. Sometimes this can be beneficial, sometimes it’s a form of voluntary psychosis.

What keeps it from becoming voluntary psychosis is tethering even the heavier ideologies to evidence that signifies something in the real world rather than just what we think and believe.

The response to the absence of WMDs and Terrorist havens that Bush alleged are an example of this. For those concerned with evidence, this is distressing. We just went to war on a cause that’s bogus. Now, folks that take that attitude will thereafter want more care taken in justifying war, and rightfully so. We lost a great deal of credibility and moment on that mistake.

Some folks, though, perceive how bad this looks, but would rather folks not dwell on it. They would prefer history to turn a blind eye to the mistakes of an otherwise great man. To that end, they will minimize, deny, and declare (yes) liberal bias to be at the heart of the criticism.

Thus does politics feed on politics instead of signified conditions in the real world. Instead of admitting the politically damaging mistake, they stonewall, deny, and quietly agree off to the side about it, always focusing on the image problem it creates, rather than the practical problem it is.

To me, this is just plain nuts. Republican or Democrat, you don’t want to be wrong like this. It’s a poor foundation for further action, and like all extended bouts of dishonesty, it requires additional lying and spinning to cover things, all of which soak up creative thought better used for the sake of policy.

I guess the thing with the GOP leadership as it is now is that they favor people who can win elections over those who can actually govern well once in office.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2005 12:32 AM

True Conservative,

You like the way things were run in the past. At what time in the past? Before the advent of social security? before world war II? During the 50’s and 60’s? It seems to me that the current GOP administration would like to go much further back, when there was an aristocracy and a great divide between the working class and the upper class. I would like to go back to when I was young, but Leave it to Beaver and Father Knows best were just television shows. There have always been problems. The great depression, WW II, Korea, Viet Nam, Macarthyism, cold war and many others.

To me a liberal is a person who feels that society was formed to support one another through these problems, to take care of our neighbors so that we can all get through life with as few problems as possible. I do not think that God put us here to accumulate wealth or to force ourselves on others. There is no room in the world today for pirates or cowboys, there was once, but not now.

Sorry, just ramblin

Posted by: Craig at June 22, 2005 12:44 AM

Cinton lied. But no one died

Posted by: Craig at June 22, 2005 12:56 AM

Craig

if we are not here to enjoy life ie accumulate wealth then whats the point in life.

force ourselves on others
that is what affrmitive action and gay marrage is all about.i dont mind either but dont jam it down socities troht.

in the past was ment to mean past morals and values

the kids that are killing eachother at school is because of the progressive “dont spank and teach respect to your kids” movement of the last 20 years finally hitting home. its not a gun or nra problem. its a family problem, children need a father and a mother. its worked for the last 3000 years. why do we need to change it this year?

Posted by: True Conservative at June 22, 2005 12:58 AM

Jimmie,

Actually, I didn’t think you said all that much.

Posted by: Craig at June 22, 2005 01:07 AM

class envy is a losing hand to play

there will always be people who are smarter, more driven, better connected and yes, better cheaters that will become rich while others bust their butt for a lifetime to survive.

its a fact of life. class envy only makes the worker feel bad about himself. they tend to be more happy with their lives than the wealthy are.

plus you make it seam that the wealthy need to be punished for their success. as if they all cheated to gain what they have.
wanting to redistribute that wealth to the masses is counter productive. if there is no reward for working to get ahead then whats the point. only work enough to get a paycheck(thats my problem with unions).

the soviets and contless other comunist countries have proven this style of government does not work.

Posted by: True Conservative at June 22, 2005 01:10 AM

Stephen Daugherty:

BRAVO, my hat is off to you. You just summed it up for us, quite elloquantly I might add.
Why is it that you and I can see that but no one else is able to.
Sadly, I can see no let up for the considerable future as we become a more polarized, divided Nation. We can NEVER cross the aisle anymore, why is that? “Oh you’re a Republican, I can no longer be your friend” I say bullshit, life is too short not to make friends with people any longer just Because They don’t believe in the same things I do. I’ve had some pretty good insults thrown my way for being a Democrat. I have given as many as I have taken, I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, probably more on a good day. I would like to point out the following:
Not every Democrat is Liberal, nor is every Republican automatically Conservative, I guess you could be a LiberalConservative but I have never seen 1, There would be the ultimate internal
conflict. Not all Republican values are Bad, in kind not all Democratic values are either. We need to stop arguing about who the bigger demon is The elephant or the burro. What I am letting you know is this, Don’t Judge me, just when you think you know me I might just surprise you and agree with your point. But more than likely, I will vote against you. No not because I disagree with your stance or views, Just to spite!

As Always,
wayne

Posted by: Wayne at June 22, 2005 01:12 AM

Jimmie

you say all your beliefs are based of “facts”. there are no facts that bush lied to anyone about wmd. if you truely believe this then im sorry for you. and im sure you still believe bill clinton DIDNT lie.

The “facts” you are looking for will never see the light of day as long as the Bush administration and the Republican controlled congress refuse to allow a truly bipartisan or independent investigation begin. That is a fact. Nevertheless, the evidence meriting an investigation is now FAR stronger than the evidence that led to the investigation into Clinton—and the charges are FAR more serious. If you discredit this evidence because you believed the talking points or because the media has been ignoring it then I’m sorry for you. Oh, and by the way, I DO think that Clinton lied…and I ALSO think that Bush lied. However, only one lie has resulted in needless death and the loss of US credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Posted by: Charles Wager at June 22, 2005 01:13 AM

wayne

you make some good points

the problem i have found is when i try to have a rational convo with a liberal they get all worked up and mad that they end up yelling.

cant they make a point in a construtive manner?

im always open to a good debate on ideals.

let me know if your up to it.
i might just suprise you also.

Posted by: True Conservative at June 22, 2005 01:18 AM

True Conservative,

the problem i have found is when i try to have a rational convo with a liberal they get all worked up and mad that they end up yelling.

I can point you too plenty of conservatives—on this very board even—that also get all worked up and mad. The more accurate way to state this is when I try to have a convo with someone who disagrees with me sometimes they get all worked up and mad; this usually happens with liberals as opposed to conservatives because I’m more likely to disagree with liberals.

Posted by: Charles Wager at June 22, 2005 01:23 AM

Charles

no the proper way to say it is. the person who is ill prepared to enter the convo will be the one who gets mad because they dont have a ration base to make their case on.

Posted by: True Conservative at June 22, 2005 01:27 AM

I’m sorry, you missed my point, my fault. I was not advocating redistributiion of wealth, I am sorry that you feel it is necessary to accumulate wealth to find a “point to life”.

You said that “its a fact of life. class envy only makes the worker feel bad about himself. they tend to be more happy with their lives than the wealthy are.” I don’t think that is what you meant, but I agree. I do not think that the wealthy need to be punished for their success, I just don’t think they are succeeding at the important things in life, you not only can’t take it with you, you might miss the trip.

The Soviets only proved that an authoritarian government will fail. As far as I know, there have been no truley communist countries, and I don’t know if there ever will be, would not want to live there if there was.

However there have been a great number of countries that have a democratic socialism that works, after all if you don’t have a form of socialism, you don’t have a society

Posted by: Craig at June 22, 2005 01:28 AM

Jimmie,

your saying bush didnt believe in wmd and made the whole thing up.

No, I’m saying that he believed that they were there but didn’t have any evidence to support the belief. He did most likely believe they were there and was counting on their discovery as a means to validate the war.

if it is proven to be true then bush should spend the rest of his life in jail.

At least we can agree on that.

but to many people including the russians(based on their own intel) came to the same conclussion.

The Russians did not start a war, and did not want this war. Even if Iraq had a few remaining WMD it still was less of a threat to us than Iran or North Korea or even Libya.

if he couldnt show proff he distroyed the weapons than why would anyone believe him.

If Bush couldn’t show proof that there were WMDs then why should anyone believe him? Oh wait, nobody did belive him, which is why he had to start a war illegally.

your saying that sadam secretly distroyed the wmd while the un inspecters were there looking for them(and his people were doing everything they could to block the inspections)and didnt bother to look like a honest man in the worlds eyes by doing what he promissed?

Nope, I’m saying that he didn’t have any WMD worth mentioning after the first gulf war ended. Perhaps he didn’t want to look like an “honest” man because he was afraid Iran would then invade him…or for any number of other reasons I can think of. Why would Bush not want to look like an “honest” man by coming out and directly refuting all the Downing street memos?

Posted by: Charles Wager at June 22, 2005 01:41 AM

True Conservative,

no the proper way to say it is. the person who is ill prepared to enter the convo will be the one who gets mad because they dont have a ration base to make their case on.

Agreed, as long as you can agree that liberals and conservatives both have been known to enter the conversation “ill prepared”.

Posted by: Charles Wager at June 22, 2005 01:43 AM

Jimmie,

You missed it again. I didn’t mention Bush by name or the afterlife at all in any of my posts.

Posted by: Craig at June 22, 2005 01:56 AM

Charles
ill agree to that 100%

there are just as many freeks on the republican side as the democrat side of the coin. add the nra kids and it might be more!

Posted by: True Conservative at June 22, 2005 01:58 AM

jimmie,

the only people that treat the dowing street memos as anything of any value are the people on this board.

…as well as a minimum of 560,000 other Americans and 120 members of Congress…and more and more people every day. Why don’t you refute them for me then? So far, I haven’t heard one good argument why they should be discounted. Please advise.

as for the wmd, everyone knows that iraq had “x” number of weapons. and that “y” number were used or distroyed during the gulf war. he went out of his way to make it look like he wasnt folowing the un scantions and saying he didnt have wmd to the world. so which is it? where are the “z” number of weapons?

He went out of his way so as not to look too vulnerable to his other enemies (of which he had plenty). I highly doubt we can account for all of our own weapons (hell, we can’t even account for a few billions dollars of spending of American tax payer money on the Iraq war). In any case, when you take out the nuclear weapons “lie” I don’t see how a few small range chemical/biological weapons (that WE gave him) are supposed to be such an imminent threat to us. I don’t think Congress would have seen it that way either…

lets not forget the un is looking more dirty with this day by day

As are we!

the 3 main countries that were against the war were france-germany-and russia. and suprise those are the 3 nations tied to the oil for food scam.

Even so, those three were far from the only countries against it. Besides, how does that justify our rushing into a war, and exaggerating the evidence to get the American people to support it? We could have spent a year or more giving the inspectors more time, with the threat to us none the greater, and in that time we could have exposed the oil-for-food program for what it was—which would certainly have helped Bush’s case.

Posted by: Charles Wager at June 22, 2005 02:42 AM

Jimmie:

There will never be any documentation convicting George Junior. The Republicans learned that lesson from Nixon.

Remember Alberto Gonzales? His testimony to the Senate regarding Torture said that he held “Minuteless Meetings” and now could not remember it. That is the Republican Party now.

btw. If any Conservatives would like to post their name and email below, please do so. It is the patriotic thing to volunteer to Serve.

Posted by: Aldous at June 22, 2005 03:27 AM

Aldous-
I think there will be documentation. Nobody’s got a good enough memory to keep operations like these all in their heads. The question will be whether or not it shows up during this presidency. With Bush’s reputation for secrecy, even on mundane matters, I fear you might be right about not seeing it until it’s too late.

jimmie-
There are facts out there. I would not say that Bush did not anticipate finding weapons. Where he lied, I feel is in saying he knew, rather than believed there were WMDs there. It’s an important distinction.

The fact is, Bush was calling for plans for invasion at least a full year before there was a public push for invasion. It was discussed at a national security meeting ten days after his inauguration. In case you think those things represent mere planning, there’s also the fact that Bush secretly had the Pentagon funnel money earmarked for our war in Afghanistan into bulking up the Kuwaiti ports for handling the heavy military presence that was going to be brought through there.

It was another year from that point that he started to back up all the rhetoric about Saddam Hussein’s Terrorist/WMD threat with talk of evidence, and bringing it before the UN. The most damaging implication about the Downing Street Memoes here is that UN support was fitted around waging an already decided war in 2002, and that efforts would be made to provoke the war by inspections and concentrated attacks.

The British joined up, in part, because the use of certain ports and centers in their possession would wrap them up in the controversy over what was ostensibly an illegal war to begin with.

I don’t use that phrase illegal lightly, but it seems to fit in light of the fact that we did not have evidence of a real imminent threat available. Pre-emptive war, which is supposedly what this is, is basically a war you fight when somebody sticks a gun to your head. There was no gun to our head.

What characterized the case for war as it was presented was negligence. If you read Plan of Attack, you’ll find Colin Powell before his UN address ripping pages out of this supposedly ironclad case because the sources in question were uncorroborated; using such information can be highly risky, because sources often lie, exaggerate, and tailor their reporting to the tastes of their spymasters. At one point, Colin Powell tossed the material across the table and declared it “shit”.

This is the “shit” that scared millions of Americans into believing that this was a legitimate part of the War on Terrorism. And yet Bush isn’t making the effort to strain out the fact from the fiction. No, he’s got his aides giving the case the trial lawyer treatment . If you remember the George Tenet “It’s a slam dunk” remark, then you should also remember that this remark was meant to reassure a president who had just called the case for war thin.

But that’s not the end of it. We get all kinds of reports from across the intelligence community that Bush administration operatives were going around stifling and concealing dissent about whether the claims of those making the case were indeed true or not. This is important because later the whole case will fall down around Bush, and he’ll blame them for not having corrected him on his mistakes. Well, what if he didn’t want to be corrected?

What does this represent to me? This represents an administration that was determining it’s policy first, and it’s facts second, and excluding those that didn’t support their agenda, doing all that in hopes that the obviously guilty Saddam Hussein would vindicate them by having the weapons, or by doing something foolish in response to the pressure.

The Republicans talk fairly consistently about the the overriding moral imperatives of freeing the Iraqis and toppling Saddam, but they continually gloss over the moral imperatives of responsible government which form the heart of the liberal’s case against the starting of this war. We do not want our consent on such important matters conned from us. We want the truth. There are many liberals of the Baby Boomer generation who can recall quite vividly a president conning the American about the causes and the progress of a war.

They can remember being told that victory was right around the corner for years on end, while the war slowly but surely spun out of control.

The hopes of many now is that with a change in policy, we can win this war, and extract the hand that got caught in the beartrap without cutting it off. After that, we hope, we can learn the lesson of this war, and never attempt anything like it without the kind of solid basis this war lacked for.

The distincions I make about signifiers of reality is this: when we follow those, there are such things as mistakes, and we can learn from our mistakes and improve the performance of our duties in our daily lives; if what we have is politics founded on politics instead, then there are no such things as mistakes, no matter how bad things get. The only thing wrong is how little our audience shares our obviously right point of view on the facts.

American foreign and domestic policy cannot be based simply on political beliefs. It must be founded on a strong relationship between what we do, and the facts we base our arguments for action about. In the end, what we demand is not the impossible perfection of policy, but instead it’s responsible formulation in good faith.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2005 08:08 AM

Stephan,

Too bad this thread went way over the cliff.

It is humerous that while trying to be inclusionary (is that a word?) You show your own deep prejudices.

The fact that you decide a racist is a good far right example, is one such example.

I submit this:

That there are racists on both sides. And, if you look real hard, there may be more on the left.

The Nazis were leftists (socialists, believing in “government knows best”)

Hate ? Has anyone been listenning to Dean lately? He’s not some whacked out far left guy ranting from the closet either. He’s your LEADER.

Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 09:10 AM

The Nazis were leftists (socialists, believing in “government knows best”)

No, they weren’t. Their full name was, of course, National Socialist, but that was a Red Herring (similar to the non-democratic Democratic Republic of Germany - East Germany).

You’re right that the Nazi government was totalitarian, but you’re wrong in equating totalitarianism with socialism. Socialism is a way to set up the economy. Totalitarianism is a way to set up the government and its rule over the people. While there can be overlap, there doesn’t need to be overlap, and often there isn’t overlap.

The Nazis were fascists. Looking at a definition of fascism, we see

The term fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini’s, that in various combinations:

• exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual.


• stresses loyalty to a single leader.


• uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.


• engages in severe economic and social regimentation.


• engages in corporatism.


• implements totalitarianism.

Calling the Nazis socialists is quite simply a misreading of both history and politics.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 09:28 AM

Okay, they started as socialist and then turned bad.

They suckered the people in with socialism and then went straight to totalitarianism.

Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 09:37 AM

Lawnboy,

I said they were leftists and they were leftists

Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 09:39 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote:

My motivation for this post is really that I’m sick of politics being about politics.

Stephen Daugherty,
This entire blog encourages the very thing you hate. This site’s premise helps to create the environment that you are “sick” of. For example, look at the top of the main page:

WatchBlog is a multiple-editor weblog broken up into three major political affiliations, each with its own blog: the Democrats, the Republicans and the Third Party (covering everything outside the two major parties).

jimmie,
Congratulations for getting my post deleted. My links went to paragraphs that merely further support my arguments (not a spam site trying to sell a product, solicit money, or sell something for money; simply a site that attempts to corroborate my arguments), and they were germane to the topic of discussion. Many also probably incorrectly assume the links go to the same place, but many go to other sites and articles. You should remember that there are newcomers to the blog that haven’t seen those supporting arguments. Not everyone here is a regular. The links to supporting arguments serve the purpose of minimizing the text to support an argument. Would you rather see links, or the long diatribe and supporting arguments and supporting facts over and over (which is pretty much what everyone else is doing, since everyone has their own axe to grind, and their viewpoints are repeated here daily also with tons and tons of paragraphs and text)? Links to supporting arguments simply serve to minimize that a bit. Also, many thanks to others (if any) that complained about harmless links that you don’t even have to click on. If you don’t want to follow a link, then don’t click on it, and then go whining and complaining to the blog managers/editors.

Also, congratulations for to those that helped create this somewhat clannish little clique controlled by a few regulars and editors that essentially bully, complain, and run off other bloggers, simply because they don’t like what their ideas are. Name calling and threats and obvious spamming should be banned, but I personally think it is a mistake to ban links to supporting arguments that are pertinent and germane to the topic of discussion. That policy fails to recognize many are not regulars to this blog, some are newcomers, and this ain’t the only blog on the internet.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 22, 2005 09:50 AM

so you want a socialist economy and a democratic government? hows that gonna work?

Quite easily if that’s what the electorate votes for. There are many ruling Socialist Parties in Western Europe. It works very well.

Okay, they started as socialist and then turned bad. They suckered the people in with socialism and then went straight to totalitarianism.

No, they suckered people in with anti-communism and nationalism and turned that into totalitarianism. Socialism was just part of the name, never as important in the ideology as nationalism, racism, rejection of democracy, and belief in a strong leader.

Here’s a summary of part of the 25-point declaration of party principles:

Ten of the twenty-five points are clearly pro-labor. “The program championed the right to employment and called for the institution of profit sharing, confiscation of war profits, prosecution of userers and profiteers, nationalization of trusts, communalization of department stores, extension of the old-age pension system, creation of a national education program of all classes, prohibition of child labor, and an end to the dominance of investment capital.” (4) This was an important part of the party’s propaganda campaign, since it raised their support among the working class, by making the party appear to have, in William Brustein’s words, a “working-class orientation”. However, Hitler was careful to also make it clear that “the NSDAP stands on the platform of private ownership”. (emphasis mine)

So, socialist-sounding rhetoric was used, but mostly for populist support.

I said they were leftists and they were leftists

I see. So, you’re the type never to let facts or reason interfere with your strongly-held opinion. Sorry to have wasted your time with an attempt at reasonable discussion. Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 10:04 AM

lawnboy,

Did you just quote some facts that supports MY statement ?

Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 10:07 AM

I don’t know who the hell posted under “zeek” but it wasn’t me.

Posted by: Zeek at June 22, 2005 10:11 AM

Did you just quote some facts that supports MY statement?

Not really. I quoted a source that says that Socialism was used as propaganda to build the popularity of the Nazi Party, but was not the foundation of the party you think it was.

That’s the danger in actually presenting supporting evidence for one’s statements: not everything is clear-cut. I found more reference to Socialism than I expected, but your idea that the Nazis were leftists is still not accurate.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 10:14 AM

Ok, let’s say we are both right.

What we can learn is this, not everything is as it seems, until you look real hard.

Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 10:18 AM

Stephen; You’ve forgotten your own post already?

Some folks, though, perceive how bad this looks, but would rather folks not dwell on it. They would prefer history to turn a blind eye to the mistakes of an otherwise great man. To that end, they will minimize, deny, and declare (yes) liberal bias to be at the heart of the criticism (…) Instead of admitting the politically damaging mistake, they stonewall, deny, and quietly agree off to the side about it, always focusing on the image problem it creates, rather than the practical problem it is.

Why would you expect a rational response? Instead, it’s more often than not “what about Clinton”, statements of nonsense as truisms, or some other irrelevant attempt at distraction. Regurgitating anything but real debate, the replies become vapid as well as simplistic and vacuous rhetoric.
If these Young Republicans are an example of our future, I need to unlearn my kids from their morals and teach them to be selfishly ammoral. There will be no positive help from the gov’t and I don’t want them to be below with the mercenary sheep.

Posted by: Dave at June 22, 2005 10:19 AM

Stephen Daugherty:

“I guess the thing with the GOP leadership as it is now is that they favor people who can win elections over those who can actually govern well once in office.”

Thank you. I have been trying to find an intelligent way to say this very thing. I am a conservative who is trying to get other conservatives to take back the Rep party or go independent. The Rep leadership is only paying lip service to core beliefs. Your description is absolutely dead on. Bravo.

Posted by: Chi Chi at June 22, 2005 10:39 AM

Good point Jimmie,

And since we seemed to have proven that the nazis came to power under a socialist agenda; shouldn’t we be using the term neo-libs instead of neo-cons?

Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 10:45 AM

for the poster above asking for email address for the war

mine is thegoempels@hotmail.com

as a disabled american vet from the gulf war im sure my old air force recuriter would love to talk to me.
can you set that up?

Posted by: True Conservative at June 22, 2005 10:53 AM

since im sitting here with the machines pumping ice water over my knees and spine. spending 250 bucks of my monthly $800 disablity pay to live on vicodin, xanax, paxil, daypro, steroid and cortazone shots and 5 or 6 other meds, i feel for you.

Posted by: True Conservative at June 22, 2005 10:57 AM

Jimmie, James,

Thank you for (re-)proving my point.

Dave

Posted by: Dave at June 22, 2005 11:00 AM

True Conservative,

You’re a disabled vet and you don’t get free meds?

Aren’t you eligible for the new medicare program where the first 2000.00 dollars worth of meds per year are free ?

Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 11:00 AM

that doesnt answer the question

Actually, it directly answered the question.

socilisium and democracy support 2 totaly difernt ways of life

No, they don’t. Democracy is a means of selecting the leadership. Socialism is a means of organizing the economy. They are orthogonal concepts. It’s happening for real in Norway, Sweden, France, etc.

socilisum has the government taken money from those who earned it and giving it to those that didnt.

You’re confusing Socialism with Marxism. These are different concepts.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 11:02 AM

Dave,

What was your point again ?

seriously

Posted by: James at June 22, 2005 11:06 AM

jimmie:

“try to take back the party or go indepentdent?
the party is run by the core(with a few nuts rolled in)”

I don’t think you have been paying attention. The “core” is now the extreme right uber religious ultra conservatives, eh? Boy, that sounds attractive. The “few nuts” you speak of are trying to jam themselves into the core. Yet, they are the most hypocritical. Look at their names: Bush, Robertson, Frist, DeLay, Barber. Are these the “core” or the “nuts?”

These are the people who, during campaign time, spout the “core beliefs” of the Rep party, but have back tracked, evaded, mislead, skirt, and over dramatized since day one. What happened to fiscal responsibility? What happened to smaller, compact, more efficient government? What happened to caring for the elderly? What happened to caring for and rewarding our military?

Those who actually stand for the core beliefs of the party have become discards: McCain, Gingrich, Giuliani, Bennett. These people, IMO, stand for reason and actually getting things done according to the true core beliefs of the party and what is best for America. These people have track records of reaching across the proverbial aisle, forming consensus, and getting things done.

Sorry. I think the leadership has been over come by the nuts. The lunatics are running the asylum.

Posted by: Chi Chi at June 22, 2005 11:27 AM

1st of i am also jimmie(bi-polar) so lets get that out of the way

chi chi

“The “core” is now the extreme right uber religious ultra conservatives”

as a non “god” believing. disabled american vet living below the poverty line, how am i what you call the above? i AM the core of the republican party.

news flash SEPT 11th. remember that? guess it slipped your mind. the deficit can be linked to that. IE the war. airline bailouts, security, etc.

“Sorry. I think the leadership has been over come by the nuts. The lunatics are running the asylum.”
this is just another wild statement.

the nuts in politics in my mind are hillery clinton and howard dean(he proved himself crazy during the campain so you make him the head of your party!!!!)and crew.

These are the people who, during campaign time, spout the “core beliefs” of the Rep party, but have back tracked, evaded, mislead, skirt, and over dramatized since day one”

again must be talking about the dnc.
(case in point bill clinton), i know anyone that brings up your past is gonna get the “that has nothing to do with anything” line. but if you dont learn from your past (and its clear you havent) then you are destined to repeat it!

Posted by: True Conservative at June 22, 2005 11:39 AM

James,

My point was to show agreement with Stephens post. That is, most debates concerning Bush’s war and economic policies between (L)iberals and (C)onservatives become constrained by a fundamental flaw in the (C) approach. I will add two additional datum as well as concede that these logical flaws are sometimes applied by (L) as well.

Instead of admitting the politically damaging mistake, they stonewall, deny, and quietly agree off to the side about it, always focusing on the image problem it creates, rather than the practical problem it is

The additional flaws I would add are as follws:
(a) That there is a lack of agreement towards definitions. Since there a dependence, more by (C) than (L) on preconceived “truths”, (C) arguments can decay into one-way preaching rather than two-way debate. Here’s an example:

What a (C) views as moral, e.g. the death penalty appears as completely amoral to an (L). I.e. It is the taking of life, what BS to claim a “culture of life”. To a (C), the (L) stance appears hypocritical,. I.e. “Stupid liberal, kill a baby, save a murderer.” The reality is in the definition. To a liberal, a fetus is “potential” life and the Mother’s right to control over her own body are more important than a “maybe”. To a conservative, a fetus “is” life and the murderer lost right to life by abrogating his responsibilities when he killed, the “eye-for-an-eye” theory.

(b) Because the occasional (C) is unwilling to admit a flaw in their point of view, there is a tendency to refer to random, often unassociated, and usually incorrect or proven wrong or outdated “facts” to support themselves. Examples:

“9/11 caused the deficits” which is not at all true. Tax cuts and increases in spending caused the vast majority of the deficits. The economic impact of 9/11 would simply have reduced the surplus. However, a (C) will now come back with a completely bogus link “proving” otherwise.
“Norweigan oil workers (they are the 2nd largest producer of oil in the world) union is ready to strike(see what that does to the price of gas here).” To a (C) a union is evil because it protects workers and they all know how lazy workers are. The reality is that oil prices are high because increasing demand from developing nations has now saturated the worlds ability to refine the oil, we’re at least 18 months away from new refining capacity. BTW: Norway is the 3rd largest oil exporter, third not second, exporter, not producer.
“if you are in fact teaching your kids “revenge” (as it is clear your witch hunt on bush has become)” Partially right, witch hunts imply there is nothing to look for. Let’s see; Does that have anything to do with debate? No, it simply says I have an unsubstantiated agenda. The right part is that I think Bush f——d up and he’s using big lies to cover it up. What I want is good, effective, and transparent gov’t. What’s this crap about “revenge”? Revenge for what? It’s in your head and your putting words in my mouth, an other example of “change-the-topic since I can’t win” strategy

Posted by: Dave at June 22, 2005 12:04 PM

news flash SEPT 11th. remember that? guess it slipped your mind. the deficit can be linked to that.

Only partially. I can’t find the source right now, but a much larger portion of the growth in the deficit is due to tax cuts than is due to 9/11-related expenses.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 12:04 PM

James-
I offered the stereotype to illustrate that most people did not fit them, so it doesn’t makes sense to object to my example on the ground that it represents an improper representation of Republicans. I know that people considered leftists can be racists, too. Racism discriminates between many colors, but not between red and blue states.

I think hearing the criticism from the right on Dean’s comment is a bit humorous. It’s a double standard that Republicans can bash liberals as a monolithic group for ages, and then jump on a Democrat as being a partisan bigot the minute he follows suit.

This poses a dilemma for people like you. I can easily say that I wish that Dean would keep his foot out of his mouth. At the same time, how ready are you to confront your people on their partisan bashing of the Democrats?

The crux of my entry here is that there is an effort to scapegoat the troubles of our system on the Democrats. I think the Republican response to Dean speaks volumes to the lack of fairness in their picture of Democrats. I can accept the criticism from Republicans and Conservatives who would have their people keep their nasty comments about Democrats and Liberals to themselves, but coming from those who gleefully bash us on a regular basis it just seems disingenous, a way to avoid a subject they know they’ve got feet of clay on.

jimmie-
It matters because the subject of the thread is basically scapegoating vs. responsible government, and the war on Iraq represents for many on our side a failure in responsible government.

On the subject of saying that Bush showed interest in going to war in Iraq on the tenth day of his administration, It doesn’t make me look foolish. Read The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind. Former Sec. of the Treasury Paul O’Neill recounts a meeting of the National Security council where he was witness to the other members drawing up plans on the attack, not asking whether a war was a good option, or what was going on that would necessitate it, but instead laying down the plans for what would get hit first and how.

You say people like me are turning this war into a defeat. This is exactly the sort of circular argument that I’m complaining about. Yes, reduction in morale can be a problem for forces, but it’s all a question of what causes it.

You ask me whether the negative regard for the war is a problem for soldiers in the field. It could be, but what about those things that are creating that negative regard? Many of those things, which are abstracts for the supporters of the war who dismiss them are realities for the folks fighting the war.

When we quote figures of high number of attacks, it’s a statistic. With them, it’s they who are coming under fire. With us, the question of armor often degenerates into arguments about whether Rumsfeld and the generals should keep their jobs. With them, it’s a matter of whether they live or die.

It is they who had the pressure on them to face the terrorists, find the WMDs, and create a free and orderly Iraq. It is they who are the first ones to feel the bad side of Bush’s policies in Iraq. So, I think they have mixed feelings about this war, and can understand in a way we can’t why this war has become so hard to win.

As for the use of the words lies and illegal, they represent no witchhunt when used with evidence that indicates their proper use. I think I’ve demonstrated serious problems with this war that merit use of those words.

d.a.n.-
On the contrary, it encourages people to get back to what politics is based on: evidence and its interpretation. Political ideology should not be the basis for policy. Practical realities should be.

Watchblog is competitive, the format ensures it. If you don’t like that a few of us feel motivate to post on a regular basis, I really can’t help you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2005 12:15 PM

dave

an other example of “change-the-topic since I can’t win

that is what you have just done

i didnt say unions are “evil” and all workers are lazy.
but more union workers are in fact lazy comparied to regular workers because the have no reson to fear losing their jobs

9/11 caused the deficits” which is not at all true
you head is in space brother
the tax cuts were a DIRECT result of 9/11 to stimulate the economy(the worked)
and the war on terror another DIRECT result of 9/11.

The reality is that oil prices are high because increasing demand from developing nations has now saturated the worlds ability to refine the oil,

norway refines its own oil supply. and yet gas is still 6 bucks a gallon

oil futures are tradding at record levels because or fears of strike in norway.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5612507/

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/25/markets/oil/

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2004/06/18/business/oilpricerisesasnorwayworkersstrike.html

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6c75204a-e1b5-11d9-9460-00000e2511c8.html

did we forget the unemploment rate?…oh lets change the subject to religion

Posted by: True Conservative at June 22, 2005 12:29 PM

jimmie,

I didn’t claim that Norway or Sweden are perfect. You asked if democracy and Socialism can co-exist. They can. Showing that there are problems there disproves me no more than my showing a list of problems in America would prove that capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist.

the tax cuts were a DIRECT result of 9/11 to stimulate the economy

The tax cuts were proposed before 9/11.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 12:43 PM

TC,
Your asumptions of cause and effect are flawed.
a - First you said “(not) all workers are lazy” just more Union laborers are than others. And you know this how? Don’t say “common sense,” that’s just a cop out.
b - Trickle down economics are bull$hit. Just ask Bush41. The tax cuts did not appreciably stimulate the economy and were proposed pre 9/11.
c - Only the US has below market gas prices. If what I said was untrue, no one would give a crap about Norway. The Norwegian impact is salt on the wound only, the wound is maxed out capacity.
d - unemployment rate is more and more bogus because it doesn’t count people who stopped looking, people who took part time work, and one or two other recently added subgroups I can’t remember. It also doesn’t show the decrease in wages for those who actually did find work.

Anything else?

Posted by: Dave at June 22, 2005 12:48 PM

Specifically, Bush has signed three tax cuts. The largest ($1.35 Trillion) was signed in May 2001. The other two tax cuts were in 2003 and 2004 but were less than $500 combined.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 12:49 PM

jimmie or true conservative:

“These are the people who, during campaign time, spout the “core beliefs” of the Rep party, but have back tracked, evaded, mislead, skirt, and over dramatized since day one”

again must be talking about the dnc.
(case in point bill clinton), i know anyone that brings up your past is gonna get the “that has nothing to do with anything” line. but if you dont learn from your past (and its clear you havent) then you are destined to repeat it!”

Unfortunately, the party is not able to look in the mirror and self evaluate. If you can not see that the leadership of the reps are just as far-fringed right as the dems are far-fringed left, you are kidding yourself and doing a disservice to your party and America. Again, the country is best when lead from the middle, IMO, and neither group you speak of is doing any good for the country—just themselves.

Now, let’s get to some facts. The war having an effect on the economy? You bet. Unbudgeted war expenditures, cronied cost overruns, horrible accounting practices that would land any of us in prison, and sudden military expenditures that should have been made over the course of time. You bet it had an effect on the economy and the deficit.

“”Sorry. I think the leadership has been over come by the nuts. The lunatics are running the asylum.”
this is just another wild statement.”

Nope. Just my opinion. As a former Rep “operative”, I have been watching firsthand how the leadership and tactics have changed. As a conservative, I don’t recognize much of what has been happening as part of the “core” beliefs the Rep party once stood for.

“”The “core” is now the extreme right uber religious ultra conservatives”

as a non “god” believing. disabled american vet living below the poverty line, how am i what you call the above? i AM the core of the republican party.”

You need to actually read the entire post, not just select the parts you can take out of context and dispute. I said the leadership is trying to jam itself into the core. If you actually are the core of the republican party, you ought to be more upset than I am at what the leadership had been doing with the economy, deficit, international relations, military, etc.

Posted by: Chi Chi at June 22, 2005 01:08 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n.- On the contrary, it encourages people to get back to what politics is based on: evidence and its interpretation. Political ideology should not be the basis for policy. Practical realities should be.

No Stephen Daugherty, the divisiveness inherent in political parties itself, does more harm than good. It serves the politicians mostly, as a mass distraction, by tricking the people into participating in the petty partisan bickering, name calling (liberals, neocons, etc.), while the politicians continue to ignore tough issues, for fear of risking re-election. And the note at the top of the blog perpetuates it:

What. WatchBlog is a multiple-editor weblog broken up into three major political affiliations, each with its own blog: the Democrats, the Republicans and the Third Party…Why. Let’s face it, politics is confusing. Sometimes it’s difficult to know who to believe, who to listen to and who to support. We’re here to help. Posting on a regular basis are editors representing each major party. Stay informed.

And the labels (e.g. LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS, etc.) also perpetuates division, and helps government continue to ignore pressing problems (e.g. while focusing the entire nation on much less important things like filibusters to block circuit judge appointments, etc.).

The blog would serve the public much better if it were not split up into three divisive sections, that perpetuate the warfare between parties. Especially, since the two main party bigots make it impossible or difficult for 3rd parties to participate in elections or debates. Also, since the two main parties aren’t really that different, and just take turns doing what they do.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Watchblog is competitive, the format ensures it. If you don’t like that a few of us feel motivate to post on a regular basis, I really can’t help you.

Stephen, That’s a thinly veiled and clever attempt to mischaracterize what I did say. What you just said is non-sequitur, and your help is neither needed or wanted. I never stated the problem was merely regulars, much less all regulars. But, that’s a typical tactic to cloud the issues and obscure the facts. I said banning links to supportive arguments (even if consistent and persistent) and the few (probably a few regulars, not all, since an infrequent newcomer would care less) that complain about them, even though they don’t have to click on them, is clannish, cliquish, controlling, and defeating the purpose of the blog.

People should be able to post links as long as they are somehow related to the discussion, are not soliciting for money, are not selling or advertising a product, or soliciting membership. The entire idea is to share ideas, which can be done more clearly and thoroughly (with less verbosity within a comment), by using many different links germane to the discussion.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 22, 2005 01:25 PM

chi chi

i have 2 uncles that work for the uaw. they read a average of 5 books a week each while on the clock.

its no wonder the big 3 are making crap cars.

the cost of labor and healthcare are eatting the cost of the cars.

“You need to actually read the entire post, not just select the parts you can take out of context and dispute. I said the leadership is trying to jam itself into the core. If you actually are the core of the republican party, you ought to be more upset than I am at what the leadership had been doing with the economy, deficit, international relations, military, etc.”

i have no problem with any of those things the admin is doing

1 the economy is growing - lets not forget clinton handed bush a economy in resession(the pre 9/11 tax break) and then 9/11 happened (the other two breaks)

the deficit is a fact of the above.

international relations- these countries never liked us. this changed no opinion of america. it made a few hate us more (were we pen pals with france before the war?)

military- after the 2 troop draw downs and the massive military budget cuts under the clinton term im very happy with the way hes handled it

no one saw the gurilla tactics used i iraq with ied’s being used pre war. if you believe that the admin knew and still sent the troops in there to die for their profit than you are filled with……..

Posted by: t c at June 22, 2005 01:38 PM

(were we pen pals with france before the war?)

Not really. Just military allies sworn to defend each other in case of an attack, significant trading partners, and major cultural influences on each other. Other than that, yeah, there was a bit of mutual annoyance.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 22, 2005 01:49 PM

lawn boy

“Just military allies sworn to defend each other in case of an attack, significant trading partners,…”

neither of those have changed (except i dont think france would be needed or willing to help us if we were invaded)

“…and major cultural influences on each other”

they hated everything about our culture and most of us felt the same towards them.

“Other than that, yeah, there was a bit of mutual annoyance”

thats the understatement of a lifetime!!

Posted by: t c at June 22, 2005 02:00 PM

d.a.n.
The fact is, factions are a fact of life in any society. There will always be strange attractors around which people gather, and which it will be difficult for other people to dissuade them from.

What Watchblog does, as far as I can see, is force people to break down more specifically what they believe and why. This helps to break down some of the illusions and barriers that having a one party outlook would foster. Watchblog is competitive, and that’s part of its fun and it’s point. There are no protective barriers shielding people from criticism. Instead, they have to learn to stand up for their own beliefs or (and this is important) change their beliefs.

You resent the bickering. I don’t. The heart of a healthy democracy is a contentious forum of debate. It’s okay that people are disgreeing and feeling strongly about that. It is a sign of the health of our society that 9/11 and Bush’s response to it are so controversial. The attention paid shows people care.

I just think the arguments get useless when we’re trying to convince people to not be liberal, not be conservative, not be this or that. I’m no angel on this, but it’s been my observation that those are losing arguments from the beginning. The person who assumes a strong political position gravitates to it for reasons that are often strongly personal. Trying to tell them that they are stupid for assuming it is a very poor way to persuade them out of it.

I think the three column construction is a good thing. It allows each party to present it’s arguments without the risk that the other party will simply crowd them out. I can remember several occasions in which one party or the other had a hiatus in their publishing. If this were single column, one party would begin to dominate the forum.

There are many reasons that the third parties have it so tough in our society, not the least of which is the strange attractor of the two way dialogue. I would say that there are substantial differences between the parties, differences that have been clouded by the Democratic party’s attempts to adjust to the “reality” of the shift rightwards in the country. Although I make a point of throwing light on the similiarities of Republican and Democrat values, I must also acknowledge that there are significant differences of culture between them.

On the subject of the links, my comment may have been non-sequitur to that, but not to your comment about a few persistent posters and the cliquish folks around them. Seeing as how I’m one of the most prolific writers on the site, that seems directed my way.

I guess it’s like the old political joke: I blog early, and often. I’m a fast writer, a well-studied person, and I have a genuine love for political discourse. So I don’t mind spending a few hours every day writing entries or responding to my commentors. You’ll notice that the most popular, most gravitationally powerful commentors are those who get their hands dirty discussing and arguing the issues. If others want the same following, then they should do the same.

You already have the ability to direct people to your site through your commentator’s URL link. That is what it’s there for. You don’t need to turn your comment into an ad for your site every time you write it. Just accept the decision.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2005 02:28 PM

tc:

“i have 2 uncles that work for the uaw. they read a average of 5 books a week each while on the clock.

its no wonder the big 3 are making crap cars.

the cost of labor and healthcare are eatting the cost of the cars.”

Where the hell did this come from?

“i have no problem with any of those things the admin is doing”

One word—frightening. Even when Ronald Reagan was president, a man I have great admiration for, as a conservative, I still had a problem with a few things he was doing. To admit no mistakes in this administration is to be blind at best. Oops! Another opinion you will undoubtedly dismiss out of hand.

“international relations- these countries never liked us. this changed no opinion of america. it made a few hate us more (were we pen pals with france before the war?)”

I couldn’t care less if they liked us or not. The fact is, many of the countries Bush’s administration has alienated are significant trading partners, and are linked to us at the hip from a global standpoint whether you like it or not—or whether you admit it or not.

“1 the economy is growing - lets not forget clinton handed bush a economy in resession(the pre 9/11 tax break) and then 9/11 happened (the other two breaks)

the deficit is a fact of the above.”

Clinton handed Bush a recession 5 years ago. 5 years. You can’t use that as an excuse forever. If the tax cuts and corporate welfare doled out were such a panacea, we would and should be recovering at a highly accelerated rate from what we are now. Additionally, if you are going to hide behind the war as a matter of economic slow down or deficit problems, history does not bear this out. The US economy, traditionally, has always exploded in time of war. This is not the case now. In fact, the economy is growing at a slow pace compared to the growth during any other conflict in the 20th century. Pick up any economics 101 text book and you can read about it.

“no one saw the gurilla tactics used i iraq with ied’s being used pre war. if you believe that the admin knew and still sent the troops in there to die for their profit than you are filled with……..”

See, here you are flat wrong. I refer you to AP’s post on 4GW—oh, that’s right. Anything posted by a non-conservative must be a lie. Well, the truth is, many, including Rep leadership, had warned Bush about the type of insurgency to expect. Fourth generation warfare (4GW) is all about insurgency, guerilla warfare, urban battles, and un-uniformed militia.

tc, I have no doubt that what you believe is genuine. I have no doubt you served with distinction, valor and honor. Unfortunately, I also have no doubt that your rose colored glasses will wear out soon, and the reality of it all is painfull. I don’t like what my former party has become. Those who look at facts with eyes wide open see the same as I do. The leadership stinks—just as I think the Dem leadership stinks. It’s tough to admit, but it’s true.

Posted by: Chi Chi at June 22, 2005 02:30 PM

Stephen Daugherty:

Well said. Thanks for the post.

Posted by: Chi Chi at June 22, 2005 02:35 PM

Stephen:

Shhh, we were always at odds with Euras… I mean, France.

Invasion is Liberation.
Dissent is Unamerican.
Ignorance is Strength.

;-)

Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 02:53 PM

err, that should have been to Lawnboy, not Stephen, sorry.

Posted by: Jarin at June 22, 2005 02:54 PM

Wow, never thought I would see the day, but I think all the conservatives and “liberals” posting on this thread suck. No meaningful insight into any thoughts/beliefs, just more tired rehashing of “liberals, blah, blah, blah” and “conservatives blah, blah”, but I must admit the jimmee guy is a hoot. I’ve never read anything by anyone so divorced from reality that wasn’t spending some time in a padded room.

The author of the original post disturbs me by labeling the anti-war movement of the 60’s as an “anti-military” movement. With crap like this being spewed around the place I would posit that the author needs to turn in his “liberal” credentials and just become a lame “independent” or “moderate”. Quit using the “Rights” talking points and try to come up with an original critique of the “left” on your own.

I love quotation marks. And I hate this blog. Bye forever.

Posted by: Buck at June 22, 2005 03:20 PM

Stephen Daugherty:

I still disagree with the ban on links, but recognize WatchBlog’s right to make policy. So I accept it even if I don’t like it.

As for the weblog being split into three groups, I still think it encourages partisanship and division. And, there are many that jump around on all three boards, and ofen, the same topics appear on all three boards, so there’s a lot of duplication. There is nothing that prevents members affiliated with any party to post on any of the three blogs. So, it still can not prevent one party from crowding out others.

Regarding the differences between Democrats and Republicans: Voters and even politicians preach many differences. But, politicians, once elected, are not significantly different. Their track record (see FAQ # 14 on my site) shows that they are actually very similar. Not exactly the same, but very similar on most actions.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 22, 2005 03:25 PM

Stephen,
Your comments always have a way of being direct and factual, making their point while not being aggressively argumentative. I appreciated your posts very much. (and your others too, as I am a frequent reader and seldom poster)

Jimmie / True Conservative

While reading this I have been amused by your constant demand for “facts” to back up everything while at the same time dismissing out of hand things like the Downing street memo, and Woodward’s books “plan of attack” and “bush at war” it makes me think that the only “facts” you will accept are those that support your current mentality. The facts are

“saying bush committed to a war in iraq on his 10th day in office is the type of thing that makes you look foolish at best. show the proof that this is so. i want to see the quotes and written directives.”

telling the truth makes you look foolish? this is fact! read the book! (plan of attack)
telling the truth can make you look foolish, however fortunately for us some people dont let this bother them, Galileo for instance.

“the only ones trying to turn this war into another vietnam are people like you. trying to turn the American people against the war(and in turn the us soldiers fighting it) is a terrible thing to do. make your case and let congress and/or the courts decide.”

i disagree, this is a government of the people correct? when i see an administration such as this one purposefully manipulate and deceive the american people, I consider it my DUTY as an american citizen to tell everyone and their mother about it… repeatedly. part of being an informed citizenry is helping make others aware of things they may be unaware of. If you disagree and have a discourse about it so much the better for the informed citizenry. You cannot simply assume the powers that be will make the correct decision; it is necessary for you to be informed, make your own decision, and be active in the community disseminating your own views while being careful to be receptive to the views of others. This way, an informed electorate will judge the actions of the decision makers and take action based upon that, not follow blindly and hope for the best.

As for the argument that we cannot speak against the war because it will hurt troop moral, these brave men are over there doing their job because it is their job. Do you think that they are entirely unaware of the situation they are in and the situation that got them there? Do you think it would be in their best interests to have 300 million cheerleaders who don’t consider the ramifications of the current situation, or 300 million people who understand that they are doing a job but think critically about why they were called to do the job in the first place?

Just some rambling I decided to get out on a slow day at work.
-Vex

Posted by: vex at June 22, 2005 03:34 PM

Stephen Daugherty,
I’m not sure I’d call it prolific.
Some say I’m verbose, but you win 1st place.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 22, 2005 04:21 PM

Rob:
“But, since we’re here, could some of the self-proclaimed liberals here define for us just what THEY mean when they use the word? As a moderate independent, I get confused sometimes. (Having to pull more than one lever is hard work!) :-)”

I’m willing this give this a whirl, and I’ll try to be as concise as I can about it.

I think the majority of Liberals deeply believe in the ideas of:

Liberty - firmly committed to the ideas outlined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Preferring the freedom of open-mindedness and the ability for themselves and for all others to live in the manner they choose to (as long as it does no harm to others), over a narrow and pre-circumscribed mindset, and the secure but severely limiting state of being told by others how they must and should live, or what they can and should do.

Equality - preferring that all the men and women in the country of every race, religion, color and sexual orientation have the chance to be heard, and to succeed, and to prosper, rather than just the few or the lucky who manage to acquire wealth or gain power over others.

Fraternitity - That we can only succeed or fail together. That every single one of us are an important and intrinsic part of our own local and respective state communitys, of our country, and expanding outward, an important and intrinsic part of the entire World.
And that when we make that connection in our minds and hearts to our neighbors, to our countrymen, to our relatives all over the World — and even to the bounty and beauty of our own lands, and to the planet that so generously sustains us, this automatically entails us act kindly, deal honestly, and demonstrate responsibility toward all of those increasingly expanding circles of people, and to the great circle which is the Earth, itself.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 22, 2005 05:01 PM

I read this blog everyday and occasionally contribute. I also read the message boards for many news articles on various sites on the internet. The problem that I see the most is that everyone is talking and very few are listening. One side states what the other side believes. When the other side tries to correct them, an argument usually ensues. Both sides do this equally. I’ve been guilty, myself.

So, awhile back, I decided to read what everyone was saying and just take it in without commenting or getting involved. You know what I found out? Everybody is pretty much saying the same thing. It’s just the details on how to accomplish some things that cause the differences. When it comes to the voters in this country, we all want the same things:
We want to live comfortably and to take care of our families.
We abhor violence and greed and want to see it stop.
We love the USA and wouldn’t trade it for anything.
We’re all scared about the future.

When you talk about core values, those are pretty good ones. We all agree on the most basic facets of life. So what’s all the hubbub, bub? We’re all so much alike, it’s alarming! Why do we argue so much? I think it’s because we lost sight of the common goals. The idea that because some individual in Washington did something that someone doesn’t like makes it necessary to hate everyone in that party is just plain stupid.
Of all the conservatives I know, not one of them is a nazi. Of all the liberals I know, not one of them loves terrorists.
Let’s get back to basics, folks. Vote for the individual and not the party. Voice your opinions on individual issues and debate them with others. And for crying out loud; stop all the name calling.
And most important of all, LISTEN to what the other person is saying.

Posted by: Cole at June 22, 2005 07:26 PM

True Conservative:
I accept your challenge, though I Do need you to accept my rules as I am hindered by my brain tumor disability I sometimes can no longer view the screen and have to walk away from the computer, oh I type EXTREMELY slow so you have to live with that or we can use yahoo messenger and IM back and forth. Let me know.
As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: Wayne at June 22, 2005 07:43 PM

d.a.n.
I think folks could safely call me prolific. I just write a lot. I know I’m wordy. It’s a personal weakness. I try to be interesting as well, so that people don’t mind my lack of brevity. I think I contribute well to the dialogue.

What I think you have to realize is that elaborate agendas can be seductive, but they don’t matter in the end. What matters is the real world of policy, what the government ends up doing after all the discussion is over and the red tape peeled away.

We can suggest dramatic agendas for changing the world, but I’ve observed those are the first things to go when the plans experience the shock of contact with reality. I believe that politics is best redeemed by a mix of solid principles, integrity, and the willingness to let the solutions take different forms than one’s initial plans had them as.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2005 09:10 PM

One of the biggest blows to McCarthy came from Republican Senator Margaret Chase Smith, when she delivered her “Declaration of Conscience”. Her speech teaches us valuable lessons today:

http://www.mcslibrary.org/program/library/declaration.htm

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all to frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism —

The right to criticize;

The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

The right to protest;

The right of independent thought.

————————————————————

Well said. I hope we see another like her one of these days.

Posted by: Julia at June 23, 2005 12:20 AM

Stephen Daugherty,
Of course you contribute well to the dialogue. I never said you didn’t. I only commented on the style, for which I also have little room to talk.

I think what you are trying to say, is that you don’t think my one-simple-idea will ever take root.

Well guess what? I have only a shred of hope too.
But, I don’t see a better way, and I’ve looked far and wide.

It’s very likely the one-simple-idea will not occur. But, if it doesn’t, there future looks questionable. How many times has this happened?
_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________
Perhaps you and many don’t believe the cycle will start again soon at (1) ?
Perhaps you don’t think we’re currently at (4) or (5) now?

Please, if you don’t mind…I’m truly interested (and others are invited…please tell me your predictions too).

What do you think is going to happen to our fragile house of cards we’ve built as all of the following culminate about the same time (over the next 10 to 20 years)?

________(sorry…I’d provide a link instead, but I’m not allowed to do that any more)______
(1) energy vulnerability;
(2) an aging population;
(3) shortfalls in Social Security;
(4) shortfalls in Medicare;
(5) shrinking number of tax payers per S.S./Medicare recipients;
(6) plundered and bankrupt pensions (now $1.6 trillion in the hole);
(7) looming bankruptcy of Government Pension Benefits Guaranty Group (now $350 billion in the hole);
(8) unaffordable & unreliable health care;
(9) 30% or more of each tax dollar going to interest only on the $8 trillion National Debt and growing;
(10) $40 trillion in personal debt and growing;
(11) unemployment & falling incomes (like after 9/11/2001);
(12) ever increasing taxes, and ever increasing ways to be taxed;
(13) an increasingly abused tax system;
(14) increasingly worse corporate and stock fraud;
(15) increasingly irresponsible, unaccountable, corrupt government, pork-barrel, graft, pardons to criminals, lack of transparency, accountability, and responsibility;
(16) government controlled by a relative few that abuse their weatlh and power; a group of over 2 million in the Executive Branch (that is neither seen nor heard as it throttles our freedoms and prosperity), and the relatively smaller 435 in Congress and their hundreds of thousands employees;
(17) increasingly dysfunctional legal system, with far too many greedy lawyers, judges (who where lawyers first), and all in collusion with the government;
(18) increasingly dysfunctional election system, corrupt campaign finance, pandering, negative campaigning, influence by those with weatlh and power, government for sale;
(19) 90% of elections are won by the candidate with the most money, giving rise to an elitist government;
(20) main parties (Democrats and Republicans) block access by 3rd parties to voting ballots;
(21) declining public education;
(22) crumbling infrastructure, failing mass transit, bridges, roads, tunnels, highways, subways, railways, airlines;
(23) globalization & the race to the bottom;
(24) unsecured borders and a government that refuses to punish those that lure illegal trespassers across the borders;
(25) increasing alienation of allies;
(26) increasing pollution and global warming;
(27) potential eletricity and communications blackouts (i.e. like recent occurrences in CA and NY), potentially followed by rioting & looting, increasing poverty, civil unrest;
(28) exploding world population, and insufficient resources for many;
(29) terrorism;
(30) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons; and weapons of mass destruction;
(31) war (Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Afghanistan, etc.)
(32) the people becoming increasingly complacent, apathetic, and resigned to the futility to change government;
____________________

My idea is one simple thing that is easy to do, easy to understand, doesn’t cost anything, doesn’t need a party, and provides the force necessary to peacefully restore a balance of power between the people and government (not simply shift the balance of power).

We’d better figure something out before we shoot ourselves in the foot again, because there’s probably not too many more years left, and what we’re already doing ain’t workin’ !

I’d love to hear yours, and other ideas.
___________________________________________
But, first:
(a) Do you think we’ll repeat history (see above) ?
(b) Where are we on the cycle (above) now ?
(c) Do you think the long list of culminating problems above could cause a melt-down (perhaps triggered by an energy shortage and/or something else in the list above) ?
(e) Do you think there’s a way we can avoid the repeat of history ?
(f) If you believe we’re headed for a decline (a repeat of history (see cycle above), or worse), what do you think can realistically and most easily be done to avoid it ?
___________________________________________

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2005 01:02 AM

I don’t mind lengthy posts, but the neverending repetitions here seem to be an intentional effort to waste space and the reader’s time. I am deleting this so that people who actually intend to express themselves can have the space to do so.
-Editor

Posted by: HIghlandangel at June 23, 2005 02:20 AM

Wow! Thanks HIghlandangel.
Was that off the cuff, or a previously prepared statement? So, where do you think the U.S. is headed? 10 years from now? 20 years from now?

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2005 02:36 AM

d.a.n.-
It looked like an honest post until you stopped to consider the length, and the repetition of several passages in a way that could not be accidental. Also, the last part had a huge number of lines that look like somebody simply pressed return on them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2005 02:56 AM

d.a.n.
Nobody sees a better way. The world is too complicated for us to figure out. My notion of things, though, is that we’re better off acknowledging that limit.

It works both ways, against pessimists as much as optimists. Neither side has the information to predict the way everything will come to pass-

Which means we should let ourselves have the freedom to consider the world in as many ways as possible, to ensure that our plans for the future remain robust, and realistic.

I don’t look at things in terms of cycles. Truth is, the world just keeps on moving on, switching for one metastable state to another. I think what makes it look cyclical is that the psychological character of people, their needs and desires has changed little during the course of history. History just stresses different parts of people’s lives at any given time.

We all got models of the world. I think your blind spot here is that you trust too much in yours, assuming history repeats as you say, assuming its in decline, assuming we are that close to some kind of apocalyptic collapse.

To me, that seems going to far, to fast, and not with the detail that would support such assertions. Don’t get me wrong- I do think things are bad now- I just don’t believe this is the end (my beautiful friend, the end) yet.

Nor do I believe that the the children are all insane. (just terminate this attempt at humor with extreme prejudice before I go any further with it.)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2005 03:14 AM

my best friend lives i norway.

-Glad for it. It’s a beautiful country.

they pay 6 bucks a gallon for gas.

-It’s certainly up there, isn’t it? Highest in Europe.

their oil workers union(they are the 2nd largest producer of oil in the world) is ready to strike(see what that does to the price of gas here)

-I doubt it will do much of anything to the price of gas here. Though that’s hardly worth noting.

their goverment is infact a monarcy!

-Yes, a constitutional monarchy. As is the United Kingdom and seemingly most of Europe. For more info on Norway’s gov’t, see:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/no.html#Govt

the unemployment rate is 3 times what it is in
america.

-Yeah. Not sure where you’re getting this one. Is this that new math of yours? Because from what I can find, their unemployment rate is at least 1% lower than ours. Though hey, maybe I’m wrong. Where are you getting that figure from?

and the “socilized” medicine is only avalible to a select few. most have their own health insurance.

-Yeah, not sure where you are getting this from. Norway, like the United Kingdom, has universal coverage, with a tiered system. That is, if you don’t want to wait in the long lines for the care that everyone else gets, you pay for private insurance, and go so private docs.

my friend there is disabled from being hit by a car.
because he recieves a 30,000 setlement the government will cover none of his helth care until his savings for the future are gone.

-I somehow find that hard to believe. But hey - in this great democracy of the US, you have to spend down to qualify for Medicaid, a move heralded as “fair.” What’s the difference? Granted, I have a hard time believing this line, but…

there were strikes in the turcking, public traspotation, newspaper industry to name a few in the last year!

i read the paper from oslo daily!

-Keep us posted!

Posted by: jimmie at June 22, 2005 11:28 AM

-Sorry Jimmie, I am rummaging through the blog history. And I had to respond.

Posted by: eeeee at June 23, 2005 04:45 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote:

d.a.n.-
It looked like an honest post until you stopped to consider the length, and the repetition of several passages in a way that could not be accidental. Also, the last part had a huge number of lines that look like somebody simply pressed return on them.

Of course it’s not accidental. But, it wasn’t simply cut & paste. I typed in the entire comment, and gave each line much thought.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but it’s sometimes required to be thorough and complete with respect to newcomers who may not have the benefit of background info that some blog regulars have.

Stephen Daugherty,
I don’t think the end of the world is near, and don’t mean to exaggerate the severity of problems. But there has been a slow and steady decline in the U.S. in my lifetime, since being born in 1957, and simply hope to find ways to make it better, regardless of how futile it seems.

Many pressing problems are being ignored by the people and the politicians, who are reluctant to tackle for fear of not getting re-elected. I, like many others here, are just looking for some answers and potential solutions, and bouncing them off of blogs around the internet, to refine and improve understanding and potential solutions.

Yes, each cycle is a bit different, but the cycle does exist. History proves it. Any fool that ignores history is destined to repeat it. That doesn’t mean it’s absolutely inevitable, but it is highly likely. Not right this minute, but in 10 to 30 years (maybe more or less), we will have to deal with these pressing problems (I won’t repeat the list here…see list above or my site).

It is worrisome that my children are going to have to deal with these many problems we’re heaping onto them.

Concern based on evidence and history does not make on a pessimist, nor an optimist. I am more a realist. A pessimist probably wouldn’t ever hold out a shred of hope. Reality and history tell me that we (the U.S.) is indeed in decline, and not sufficiently addressing some serious problems, and it’s not hard to see how it can lead to an economic melt-down (not the end of the world, not the apocalypse, but some very difficult times, possibly like the great depression of the 1920’s and 30’s; that is not far fetched or alarmist or paranoid; it is prudent and measures to avoid it would be