Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Re: Dividing America: Day 2

Did you miss Obama’s speech?

Misha has highlighted a particularly pertinent passage over in the blue part of the blog.

I like the fact that Eric wields Socialist rhetoric better than any lefty I’ve ever met. That comment about Swaggart may be saying more than Eric intends. :)

There’s no denying the fact that Republicans have been chucking wedge issues into the fire recently. That stupid gay marriage amendment is a great example. As legislation, it’s pointless since 39 of the 50 states already ban gay marriages and 9 more will have it on the books this year.

The only reason Republicans made it an issue is so they could say, “If you support … a mother and a father for every child, you are a hater. If you believe that men and women for 5,000 years have bonded together in marriage, you’re a gay-basher. Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That’s what we hear,” - Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

Wow, Democrats think marriage is evil. I don’t think marriage is evil. I must be a Republican. Duhhh.

Clinton and Obama are correct in their assessment that the Republican leadership needs these demagogic wedge issues to win. They’d get creamed if they ever had to stand on their issues - issues that Clinton (and Eric, on many occasions) have made clear.

The Republican leadership believes the federal government should cut Social Security, cut Medicare, cut funding for public schools, cut funding for state police and fire services, cut funding for everything that is not national defense. They believe the government should stop regulating business and utilities, and just get out of the way so corporations can do whatever it takes to drive the economic engine of this country.

If the Republican leadership were to put that agenda honestly before the American people, it would be rejected out of hand. The only way they can stay in power to achieve those aims, is to “portray us Democrats as unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America.”

Nope, just plain common experience by common people in the country know that racist and class separation of Americans are commonplace. I grant you there is some enough to go around in both parties, but, down here in Texas (Bush land) it is almost a religion if you scratch the surface of southern politeness and engage in conversation about these topics, as I did with my well contractor just 4 days ago. Really nice guy, good at his job, staunch Bush supporter, and hates Blacks about as much as Mex’s and proudly demonstrated how his lower teeth float in his gums from one too many bar fights.

Wealth permits segregation for the wealthy by class, and in part by race. Exceptions? Sure. But, Eddie Murphy’s relationship with the country club in Beverly Hills cop is as real today as when the movie was made. It is common experience in America. Most folks take it so much for granted, they often reject in speech that it exists as a matter of political correctness in self presentation completely failing to recognize what hypocrites their daily experience makes of them by their own words.

Like I said, it is not exclusive to the Republican Party, but, whether perceptual or real, Republicans are perceived as reformed KKK. Reformed by education in how to appear to be what they are not. An activity Pres. Bush has demonstrated time and again some proficiency.

Eric, your party rationalizes pollution, saying its necessary for the economy. If you don’t want it, stop offering defenses and backdoor escapes for those who indulge in it. Your party rationalizes tax rates across the nation that aretoo low to support all the programs and infrastructure that even your people want.

You allow Executive pay to explode while worker pay remains stagnant, and you rationalize this by the elitist idea that somehow the bosses and leaders deserve such pay increases more than the people at the bottom of the totem pole, even as people are asked to do more and more in the name of the company.

You propose a massive educational reform bill which has no hope of truly improving education, and even less hope now that your people have failed to fully fund it.

Your people have intentionally degraded our ties to our European allies, and gone through with actions that make Arab involvement with us, even among our friends there highly unpopular. There may be times when that’s necessary, but according to virtually every substantiated piece of evidence out there, it wasn’t.

Unfortunately, your people put us in a position where justifying this war required finding that evidence after the fact. Now Americans are in more danger, not less, in that region. What’s Bush’s response? Bring it on! Well, sorry, but it seems your candidate wants their soldiers to attack and try to kill ours. It’s bluster, but it’s bluster better suited for a unit commander in the field, than a Commander in Chief safe in his oval office back home

As for fear of debt, bad health, and poverty, the Democrats have no need to manufacture these. I know from personal experience. I won’t go into detail, but let me tell you that one major illness in a person’s life can have devastating financial consequences. These are not irrational fears, but one’s founded in our actual conditions.

You may not have chosen to do these things to other people on purpose, but you have signed on to agendas and and signed up with leaders who are, or who, like you, follow policies and platforms built on long forgotten or outdated reasons. Bush and his people take as theology policies and philosophies they should take as tentative, needing of proof. They will preach massive tax cuts, and hope in vain that improvements in the economy will swallow the record deficits that result. They and you will preach military aggression even as our last effort along those lines went badly off track. You will preach the gospel of the market, even as the market itself fails to pre-empt the activities of the less scrupulous.

In the end, you are fully willing to back these policies, and therefore must take full responsibility for their consequences. Americans feeling those consequences are wont to react badly to that, and to blame those responsible. Is it divisive? It can be.

Thing is, though, there is this unwillingness among Bush and his people to admit to any error. Despite all the talk of responsibility, honesty, and straight shooting, They will walk a mile out of their way to avoid admitting to a mistake. They are so paranoid when it comes to admitting mistakes because they fear the backlash from Democrats.

Well, here’s news for your folks: the founding fathers wanted it that way. James Madison, fifth president and father of the constitution made this government so that people would have to face that criticism from opposing factions and coalitions. If Bush or his allies are unwilling to face that criticism, there is an old saying that applies: If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Well, if your president can’t stand to be criticized for his actions, and the actions of his party, then they are fully welcome to leave American Government behind. In fact, we Democrats are going to help him make up his mind on the subject come November 2nd, aided in large part by the mistakes he was unwilling to own up to.

Eric, the accusation is that Republican politicians and the current Republican leadership practice divisive politics, not that Republican citizens do. Your post is a distortion of that Democratic message.

That said, you certainly aren’t helping matters when you ludicrously accuse an ex-President of advocating “communist enslavement” and call him someone “who would rather have us surrender rather than defeat evil”. Countless times you’ve followed the lead of the aforementioned Republican leadership and have accused not only liberals and Democrats as a group, but some of us on this list as individuals, of being communists, traitors, lovers of tyranny, and supporters of Osama bin Laden.

Disagreement isn’t divisiveness. Criticism isn’t either. Demonization, however, is.

-Cf

Perhaps it is Democrats who look upon history as a class struggle between competing victim groups.

Republicans use a similar ideology — now they trying to paint heterosexual married people as an oppressed group. What oppresses us? Marriage among people who aren’t straight. We can’t exclude other people, therefore we are victims.
Oh and conservative Christians, too. They aren’t allowed to tell other people what to do, and they aren’t gonna take it anymore!

The gay marriage amendment is a solid, you-can-take-it-to-the-bank example of divisive politics. There is no other plausible explanation for its existence. Republicans say that they want to give states the power to outlaw gay marriage, but they can already do it! (Oh, and take the power away from “unelected judges”. Whatever on earth that means. I guess the governor of each state will preside over marriages and divorces.)

Liberals should reintroduce the Bill of Rights for ratification. Legally, it would be meaningless, but what a fun symbolic gesture!

You guys must be kidding. I resist the urge to label the left as totally loony, but you see demons where there are none. You claim the Republicans are trying to destroy the environment. Please tell me how they’ve done that. They’ve not disbanded the EPA. They may have lessened some rules, but more rules are not necessarily better rules. Under current EPA standards I worked for a company that had to report on the location of each bathroom because of the methane release when people used them. Tell me how that protects the environment. The left too quickly assumes the relaxing a standard equates to destroying the environment. Be smart about what you argue.
There is really less a difference between left and right as both sides believe. Politicians on both the left and right maintain these illusions to keep you on their side. Republicans don’t really believe in cutting everything. To believe that is to believe the propaganda. Democrats aren’t really communists, that also propaganda. The truth lies in the middle. I believe that people are best governed by themselves, by their local communities, not by Washington. I believe that government regulation should be smart, and simple. I should not govern every part of our lives or our business, only that which is proven needed for the public good. I believe that too many of my tax dollars are wasted by corruption and greed. I believe that we need our international allies, but just because you’re from old Europe doesn’t make you right. I believe that the purpose of government is to provide the necessary framework for people to excel, not to guarantee them that they will succeed. For those reasons I more closely identify with the right, not the left. Our goal for the country is the same, to deny that is foolish, our path to get there is different. A smart debate would be on the path, not the goal.

“Clinton and Obama are correct in their assessment that the Republican leadership needs these demagogic wedge issues to win.”

This is where Clinton and co. could not possibly be more wrong- if only the leadership of the republican party would realize it. Ronald Reagan was far far more conservative than Bush (who is not conservative at ALL on economic issues!)- and he won and won convincingly with hope and a positive vision for freedom.

What Clinton and co. are RIGHT about is that the republican leadership has forgotten the lessons of Reagan’s hope and have turned to the same attack politics that have characterized the left’s attack on Bush for the last 3 and a half years (well it goes back further than that- but the last 3 years have been especially ugly). They decided that issues like gay marriage and attack adds on Kerry are the way to go- where is your positive vision? how are you gonna move the country foward? THe reason that Clinton can marginalize the right is because they have played right into the caracature.

The american people are sick and tired of the attack-based campaigns that both major parties are running- which is why the approval ratings for both Kerry and Bush are in the toilet.

> Ronald Reagan was far far more
> conservative than Bush

This may be superficially true, and of course the whole “compassionate conservative” idea was meant to encourage that perception, but if you adjust for major cultural shifts (i.e, do the political equivalent of translating 1984 dollars to 2004 dollars), well, it’s not so true at all.

The 1980s were very conservative times, particularly culturally. People wouldn’t blink an eye before condemning imaginary armies of “welfare queens” or suggesting that AIDS was God’s punishment for gays. This perception of Republicanism was something Bush in 2000 was trying to distance himself from, and apparently many Americans bought into it.

But I think that, since 2000, Bush has revealed himself and his team to be more conservative compared to most Americans today than Reagan was compared to most Americans in the 1980’s. Sure Bush doesn’t ally himself with the likes of vicious gay-hater Jerry Falwell like Reagan did, but how is John Ashcroft any different? Sure he may not openly condemn homosexuals just for being gay, but why in the world is he so gung-ho over the FMA? Sure Bush may have a racially and culturally diverse cabinet (which Reagan certainly did not), but what’s with the snubbing of the NAACP and the visit to Bob Jones and the John McCain smear campaign? Mainstream America has moved 20 years forward since Reagan, but Bush has not.

In many cases, with regards to religion, the environment, the budget deficit, abortion, affirmative action, the First Amendment, and many other issues, Bush’s politics are identical to Reagan’s and haven’t changed with the times one bit. With regards to stem cell research, it seems logical to assume that Bush is far far more conservative than Reagan was.

One place where Bush has significantly diverged from Reagan’s conservative politics is, of course, on foreign policy. Reagan was highly successful in using American strength to increase our bonds with our closest allies, including France and Germany, while Bush has used our strength to spurn them at almost every turn.

If you ask me, Bush’s team has merely put a kinder, gentler facade on what can only be characterized as old-school reactionary conservatism. We would be much better off with a true Republican moderate (comparatively) like Bob Dole or Richard Nixon than with Bush and his right-wing cadre of iron fisted noble liars and end-time apocalyptics.

-Cf

I enjoyed Barack’s speech last night, but while listening I wondered if Jessie Jackson, Jim Clyburn, or John Edwards equally enjoyed it. I bet Edwards is re-writing his speech for tonight and removing all of the “Two Americas” rhetoric based on Mr. Obama’s success.

Obama might just be the moderate voice the Democrats need to right their tilting ship and become an inclusive party once again. That would be a good thing.

Three cheers for Delrazio!!! Great great post!

Woody:

You claim that Republicans are using “gay marriage” as a divisive tactic. I find it utterly ludicrous that you can say that without attaching a smiley face to it to show you are kidding.

What has happened is that a small group of people (in Massachusetts it is their state court, in California it was Gavin Newsom, in New York it was the mayor of New Paltz)decided they didnt like a certain law and decided to ignore it. In Massachusetts, at least they allowed a court to change the law, which is acceptable to me……for Massachusetts. But its not acceptable to then allow people to utilize that Massachusetts law in other states. If that is NOT being done, then I;m okay with it.

In the case of Newsom and in New Paltz, they simply decided to not uphold existing laws, which is precisely what Judge Roy Moore did in Alabama (to the horror and jeers of the left). In all three cases, the same thing happened: elected officials ignored the law. But the left only had a problem with……you guessed it….the REPUBLICAN who ignored the law. How interesting that it. In my book, all three should have faced the consequences of breaking their respective laws. You dont get to pick and choose who to punish based on which laws you think are ok to break (though Dems also seem to think Sandy Berger should be allowed to choose this very thing, and that Bill Clinton should get to choose what to tell the truth about in court).

Bottom line is that Dems are pushing the gay marriage issue. Republicans are RESPONDING, at which point the Dems cry foul. Its a game of three card monte, and its what the Dems do best.

jbod, if I recall correctly, Bush announced a program he was going to push for that would aid citizen’s in learning about their marriage and how to strengthen them or avoid divorce, before the Mass. ruling came down. There is likely no causal relationship between that and the Courts ruling, but, Bush has been anti-gay from the beginning. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he still fears contracting AIDS by shaking the hand of a gay person. (joke)!!!

Down here in Texas some report in editorials that Gays caused this AIDS virus through their behavior and then spread it around the world. Of course this hill country area is prime Republican area, and one can see from the editorials why Republican’s here at least, want to ban gay marriage. They will work on incarcerating Gays for crimes against humanity next year.

I like the fact that Eric wields Socialist rhetoric better than any lefty I’ve ever met. That comment about Swaggart may be saying more than Eric intends. :)

I was raised by a pack of communist wolves.

Joe,

My main point, which you completely ignored, was that the GOP is pushing a pointless, incoherent amendment to the constitution. The national Democrats are saying it is up to the states — in order words, they want to DO NOTHING about gay marriage.

To put it differently, which party wants gay marriage to be an issue in the presidential campaign? The Republicans. There is no mystery here. They freely admit it.

You raise the issue of states being forced to recognize another state’s gay marriage. There is already a federal law on the books to prevent this. The only reason we would need a constitutional amendment is if the US Supreme Court forced a state to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state. Is there any real possibility of that in today’s political climate?

As for people like Gavin Newsom who practice civil disobedience, there is nothing to do at the federal level because they are already breaking the law. The point I keep coming back to here is that the GOP has been struggling to make a federal issue of this, but there really is none, unless they want to override the states and ban gay marriage outright.

Many Republicans disagreed with the federal amendment on gay marriage—which is why it couldn’t even get a majority vote in a Republican dominated congress. I disagree strongly with the amendment, but I don’t think I have to agree with all Republicans on every single issue to support them in general.

The Democrats’ palaver about the Republicans trying to “divide” America is rank election-year hypocricy. Even the accusation that Republicans try to divide America is an attempt to divide America.

The Democrats—in this election cycle—have done nothing but try to drive wedges between black and white, rich and poor, and have been guilty of the worst kinds of demonization of their political opponents (look at Howard Dean and Michael Moore’s continuous stream of invective and hate).

For the likes of Gore and Kennedy to strike saintly poses and lecture the rest of us about “dividing” America is merely laughable. Even Obama, the left’s ethnic flavor of the month, is guilty of extreme divisiveness—and hence gross logical and moral inconsitiency.

The likes of these three say they’re “against divisiveness,” but what’s their solution? For those who oppose their agendas to capitulate absolutely and be silenced.

If everybody would just roll over and give hysterical divisive Democrats everything they ask for (which would pretty much require Stalinist gulags and re-education camps), then we could have the pacified, blindly obedient utopia of an undivided leftist state.

Watching the Democratic convention has made me more optimistic about Bush actually winning this thing than I’ve been in months.

The main thing is that Bush, not Kerry, has actually enjoyed a “bounce” in the polls. The Democrat’s glee at what even I admit looks like a pretty good tighly scripted convention aside, what is it that Americans are seeing and not liking in the Democrat’s convention? According to today’s ABC poll, Bush is now up two points. What’s going on here?

Historical perspective: Dukakis led Bush the elder 54 to 37 percent after his convention. Clinton led
56 to 37 after his convention in 92. And today, with the possibility of Bush actually being ahead or tied after Kerry’s nomination, look at what’s ahead. In August, a whole month of silence from the Kerry campaign while Bush can keep spending, and then comes the Republican convention. Add to that economic figures that are looking VERY good and a rapidly improving situation in Iraq.

It’s too soon to say for sure, but Bush has to like his position very much right now. Maybe there’s hope for this country after all.

Martin,
Especially after watching Al Sharpless….

Unbelievable…

Add to that economic figures that are looking VERY good and a rapidly improving situation in Iraq.

Ummm, i dont know where you get your news from but this year’s budget about to be announced soon is going to be a new record deficit, and the rapidly improving situation in Iraq is only occuring on fox news. If you havent noticed the Phillipines have withdrawn their contigents, and Egypt is bribing kidnappers. Oh and latest news from Iraq says 68 people just died in a car bomb. A very successful war on terror indeed, might as well not have had any plan in the first place… oh wait…

And the republican convention in NYC is going to be mass protest magnet. Gonna be really a lot of fun watching on tv.

Martin wrote

“If everybody would just roll over and give hysterical divisive Democrats everything they ask for (which would pretty much require Stalinist gulags and re-education camps), then we could have the pacified, blindly obedient utopia of an undivided leftist state.”

how about….

If everybody would just roll over and give hysterical divisive Republicans everything they ask for (which would pretty much require ignoring the rest of the world except the parts that we want to control, and eliminating the portions of government that promote equality and social well-being) then we could have the pacified, blindly obedient utopia of an undivided neo-conservative state.

Is it the left’s fault that this administration has done everything possible to split this country down the middle? How can you so blindly accept your side while attacking the other?

BushCo. “sold” a bill of goods he never intended on delivering.

I fear Kerry is doing the same, but at least I can see the whole picture.

Nick, Karl Rove himself couldn’t script a gift to Bush as powerful as this “mass protest magnet” you mention. It amazes me that the left thinks their demonstrations—as cathartic as they find them personally—might actually influence voters. Think Chicago in 68 (McGovern).

You think swing-state voters, soccer moms in Ohio and blue-haired Jewish pensioners in Florida just need to see some pro-Palestinian protestors and anti-globalization bottle throwers before deciding to vote Kerry? Wake up and smell the tear-gas.

So okay, an Islamic terrorist just killed 68 fellow Muslims with a car bomb. In other news, other Islamic terrorists just beheaded some Pakistanis.

Our enemy, frustrated at not being able to get at us, is kidnapping, threatening and murdering common Iraqis and citizens of other Muslim countries. What this does—or should do—is prove to Americans the depravity of our enemy and strengthen our resolve to defeat them. A resolve, incidentally, which the Democrats utterly lack.

As terrible as this “Muslim-on-Muslim” violence is, I can’t help but think it’s adding up to a huge propaganda defeat for Islamicists in the Arab world and moral victory for the Bush administration. Don’t expect to see this reported in the New York Times—just use your common sense.

The Islamicists, in their nihilistic frenzy, are mass-murdering their erstwhile allies to make some abstract point understood only by themselves. Not even Al Jazeera is going to be able to spin these horrors.

Al Qaida’s actions reeks of desparation, and offers evidence that George Bush, Tony Blair and their handful of brave allies, have these monsters on the ropes. This is exactly what the war on the terrorists was intended to achieve. At this point, sadly, the only thing that could turn victory into defeat is the cynical power-hungry machinations of the American left. In other words, electing a soft-willed appeaser and opportunist like John Kerry.

Martin, one can only hope the protesters will represent the true democratic party: the party fighting for world peace and security, the party fighting for a working minumum wage, the party fighting for social security, and the party fighting for universal healthcare.

And I would disagree with you that blood flowing like oil in the middle east is making America safer. Muslim boys who would otherwise have been listening to Britney Spears and dreaming of growing up to lead an ‘american’ life are now strapping bombs to themselves and killing people who they see as infidels. The next generation of young people in the middle east are growing up even more blinded by hate for america than their parents. Perhaps Im just mistaking all of this for the depravity of a few but in my humble opinion, the war in Iraq is serving as a catalyst for a new generation of terrorists, Iraqi terrorists. Before we had Saudi, Egyptian, Palestinian and Afghani terrorists. Now we have created Iraqi terrorists, most of whom arent even affiliated with Al Qaida.

If we had focussed squarely on terrorism, Afghanistan could have become the ‘Japan’ of the middle east. Built by America, a shining symbol of what American liberation truly stands for.

Ed Gillespie should be rejoicing right now for his campaign of making you believe that John Kerry is a soft-willed appeaser has suceeded. A testament to what a million dollars of advertizing can do. If John Kerry becomes president he will obviously do everything he can to aid the terrorists, because thats what Ed says… He will change his mind at every oppurtunity he gets, because thats what Ed says… And God forbid he works with the French and the Germans, because clearly they stand against everything America symbolyzes, how do I know? Because Ed Gillespie says so…

Woe is us! All is lost! Kerry didn’t get a bounce from the convention!

Um, wait a minute. The convention isn’t even over yet. You are prophesying the effects of a speech we haven’t seen.

The bit about Dukakis is bogus because Bush wasn’t the incumbent. Historically, undecided voters vote for the challenger, not the incumbent. Charlie Cook made this point in a recent column. As for Clinton, he won, didn’t he?

Martin, I think you’re calling “divisiveness” what others would term “persuasion aimed at the Electorate” The only dividing we want to do is between Bush and his office.

Your vision of the democrats is of crypto-stalinists that must be opposed at every juncture. That idea is so strong for you that you’ve missed that most of the rhetoric is very inclusive. Even the populist rhetoric that could theoretically be framed as rich against poor has been smartly framed as rich with the poor- Not keeping the profits of busines with the upperclass, but spreading the wealth to reward work as well as investment, business, and executive privileges.

At some point, you have to step back from your Republican spin, and actually listen to what these people are saying, because if you don’t, you might underestimate our appeal to the people out there. This is by far one of the most patriotic and optimistic conventions I’ve ever seen from the Democrats. If patriotism and optimism constitute divisiveness for you then I’m at a loss to explain why you’re a Republican.
If anybody is getting hysterical, its the people who believe half the country wants to put the other half in gulags and re-education camps. We’re only trying to get elected.

*************************************************

If Bush has nothing to worry about concerning demonstrations, why does Bush stick the protestors on the other side of town?

I do think the insurgents, terrorist and not, are losing the P.R. Battle by killing so many civilians. But we lose it too, because we invaded the country and set up this situation where they see hundreds, even thousands of people dying a month. If we had secured that nation right, and sealed off the borders to Syrian and Iran, we could have done a much better job of convincing the Iraqis that they are better off without Saddam. We also would have had an easier time of training our replacements. Rumsfeld, though, wanted to use Iraq as the testbed for a new approach to warfare, one fine for invasions, but vulnerable to low tech guerilla tactics and the manpower demands of an occupation.

I don’t believe they’re frustrated. I believe they know what they’re doing. You think they care that they’re getting killed in droves. Do they? These are the kind of people who slammed jets into skyscrapers exclaiming “Allahu Akbar,” God is great. It’ll be quite a while before we wear down that kind of resolve

I don’t believe they’re desperate. Madrid was not desperation. That bombing the other day, while fratricidal, had a clear intent: discourage people from signing up for the Iraqi police. We’ll see desperation when we see them attack targets they know they can’t hit, making last stands, and when the Muslim population of the Middle East starts telling them to shove off. They are not doing bad right now, considering their aims.

Everybody who’s anybody, whether they’re in the congress or the 9/11 commission maintains that Al Quaeda is still a major threat, and they still have the patience, the determination and the intelligence to strike at us again. You do yourself no favors by adopting the view that the war is nearly won. The very fact that these people can bomb at will should indicate just how far we have to go on our road to victory. Your complacency, especially in the face of Bush’s incompetence, will only leave us stalled on the side of that road.

As for resolve, it takes more resolve to go and volunteer to fight in a war you disagree with, to volunteer for the frontlines when one could remain on a ship off the coast, to charge into enemy positions willingly, rather than staying at home and half-heartedly serving for a war one would praise to high heaven.

Where was that resolve when really did have Osama Bin Laden on the ropes. Where was the zeal to follow Osama and hunt him down like the dog he is. I mean, if your candidates resolve to hunt down Osama Bin Laden is so great, he would have turned over every stone, and sent troops to the end of the earth to hunt him down. Instead, we go off and we fight in Iraq, Osama still uncaptured.

The only resolve your candidate has demonstrated is that for being re-elected. Kerry may be equally resolved to be elected himself, but at least that’s not all the resolve he’s got.

Three years, Martin. Three years.

On a last note, where’s that large coalition of the willing? I thought the point there was the world supported us. Now you’re saying we only have a handful of supporters in the war on terror? Couldn’t your candidated have done better than that?

> As terrible as this “Muslim-on-Muslim” violence
> is, I can’t help but think it’s adding up to a
> huge propaganda defeat for Islamicists in the
> Arab world and moral victory for the Bush
> administration.

What a cynical thought. In other words, you see a bright side to the Iraqi deaths. You believe that the American people won’t think that it’s a bad thing that literally hundreds of Iraqi civilians are killed by Iraqi insurgents every month. Do you believe that the American people will think that the chaos and violence in Iraq - a borderline civil war - is a good thing for America?

What you are essentially doing, most likely unwittingly, is laying the intellectual groundwork for an American withdrawal from Iraq. If the American people really do only get mad when Americans die in Iraq but are willing to brush aside, overlook, and quickly forget about the vastly larger numbers of Iraqi deaths, then the Bush Administration will feel less obligation to stick around and clean up the mess they have made.

(I remember a few months ago when you compared the small number of American deaths in Iraq to the number of murders in Detroit, trying to portray Baghdad as a “safe” city, but cynically and callously disregarding the thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.)

What you - and America - should be doing is putting these Iraqi deaths near the top of our list of priorities for Iraq. I’ll put it bluntly: The 68 Iraqi civilians who died yesterday represent a massive American military failure. If we don’t stop these deaths, we will lose in Iraq. Not only should we not brush them aside, we should talk about them more.

This months Harpers magazine has a very moving photo essay called “The Bereaved” by Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Peter Turnley. It juxtaposes photographs of both American and Iraqi funerals. My assumption is that most of the Iraqi deaths are the result of the same Iraqi insurgent violence that is killing our troops. In other words, both the American soldiers and Iraqi people are facing the same enemy.

I hope that the American people aren’t as heartless and irresponsible as you seem to hope they are.

> Al Qaida’s actions reeks of desparation

Two problems with that sentence.

First: Al Qaeda? Who said yesterday’s car bombing was the work of Al Qaeda? Or for that matter, even the work of Islamic extremists?

The vast majority of the deaths in Iraq are the work of plain old Iraqi insurgent groups, rebels and partisans who seek political control of their villages, provinces, and their country — and are willing to kill their fellow innocent Iraqi civilians to get it.

Second: Sadly, it doesn’t seem like the Iraqi insurgents are ‘desperate’ at all. If you ask me, with attitudes like yours and that of the Bush Administration (in their headlong race to hand over political power in time for the American elections) the Iraqi insurgents probably can take great comfort in their prospects for the future. In fact, targetting Iraqi police stations instead of American troops might be a deliberate tactic to give President Bush the political breathing room he would need in order to pull America troops out of Iraq without making it seem like a retreat. The insurgents probably feel like they have a good chance, perhaps a few years from now, of actually succeeding in supplanting an American-created regime and gaining control over Iraq.

-Cf

Nick,

“Martin, one can only hope the protesters will represent the true democratic party: the party fighting for world peace and security, the party fighting for a working minimum wage, the party fighting for social security, and the party fighting for universal healthcare.”

If the Democratic Party is fighting for world peace and security, then what is their plan? There is no simple answer to the likes of the terrorism that we have seen getting progressively worse for over 20 years. You just can not eradicate that in 18 months. But you can start. This instant gratification that Democrats want is just infantile. It simply will not happen.

It seems to me from what I can tell and what past experience has shown, the only answer Dems have is to pull out troops, return home, stick our heads in the sand and kowtow to the French and hope things get better. They have offered, with the exception of Lieberman, no hope or plan of defeating terrorism. Please tell me what the plan is. I have been listening and have not heard or seen, under Democratic Administrations, anything but promises and no action.

Does terrorism exist (or existed) solely in Afghanistan? I would think not! But the solution that Dems offer up does not make me feel safe.

When did the minimum wage become a standard that all workers should want to aspire to? The purpose of minimum wage jobs was not intended to feed and clothe a family. It is meant as a temporary solution and not a life style. At least Republicans don’t share that idea.

Check the record, Social Security has been weakened more by Democrats than with Republicans. And universal Healthcare? Don’t you mean Health Insurance? Nobody is denied Health Care in this country. Many people are without health insurance however and it is too expensive to pay for it as an individual. It is even getting too expensive for companies to provide it. Could it be that trial lawyers have made this an insurmountable task?

Watching the Democratic convention has made me more optimistic about Bush actually winning this thing than I’ve been in months.

Whistling in the graveyard. :)

If the Democratic Party is fighting for world peace and security, then what is their plan? There is no simple answer to the likes of the terrorism that we have seen getting progressively worse for over 20 years. You just can not eradicate that in 18 months. But you can start. This instant gratification that Democrats want is just infantile. It simply will not happen.

this is getting to be fun.
Well lets examine the last 20 years,
democrats have been in power for 8 years
republicans have been in power for 12

During the 80’s we (republicans) gave money, weapons, biological and chemical agents, passports and anything else Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and a host of other people in the middle east wanted. Fledging democratic movements in Iran were stangled on the republican watch, while in Lebanon civil war raged on between Muslims and Christians. Saddam Hussein was stopped from invading Kuwait but once the oil was secured, we turned a blind eye to him gassing Kurds.

During the 8 years of Clinton, we (democrats) stopped a genocide in Kosovo, stopped funding to Bin Ladden leading him to declare jihad on the west, his ideas were so radical that only Afghanistan would take him. This time also marked great promise to resulution in the Israel- Palestine conflict. The first decade since the creation on Israel without a major conflict between them. Africa policy was however a mass failure, but hey at least we tried.

Flash forward to today. Terrorist attacked NYC under a republican watch. Our intelligence turns out to be as good as a blind psychic. More than half the world hates us, a growing number would give up their lives to kill us. Bush’s plan for dealing with terrorism reads more like a kid with ADDs plan for problem solving. Why dont we attack France next? They have WMD, they have a sizable Muslim population, heck Chirac is anti American and we are following a policy of premptive strikes.

Sorry I got so of track…

Nick,

Lets not stop at 20 years, lets go back 24 years, when Carter left office. A president any good Democrat would certainly hold in the highest esteem. Did you live through the late 70’s? If you did you will remember double digit interest rates, inflation, gas lines that went around the block, Iran held hostages for well over a year, gave away the Panama Canal… should I go on?

And Keep Dreaming.

>>During the 80’s we (republicans) gave money, weapons, biological and chemical agents, passports and anything else Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and a host of other people in the Middle East wanted. Fledging democratic movements in Iran were stangled on the republican watch, while in Lebanon civil war raged on between Muslims and Christians. Saddam Hussein was stopped from invading Kuwait but once the oil was secured, we turned a blind eye to him gassing Kurds.>>

You must be young and don’t remember the Soviet Union. Believe it or not there was a cold war going on and Afghanistan and Bin Laden was fighting an invasion by the Soviets. You remember! Of course you do, Carter’s response was to pull us out of the Olympics. My that was mighty brave! And what was it that Carter did to assist Iran when the Ayatollah was taking over Iran and all that lunacy began. I am sure you must know. OH it was NOTHING! But that is why he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. Him and Yasser Arafat. What a joke.

Carter is sent to North Korea by Clinton to stop them from building a Nuclear Weapons facility. Oh that worked well, my Grandmother could have brokered that deal. Just give them 5 billion dollars to stop and when they run out of money… guess what they’re back! Whadya know. And it is Bush’s fault.

Bush 1 could only get a UN approval for liberating Kuwait by stopping at liberating him only, He just followed the rules and it was up to Clinton to keep Saddam contained. That worked well, didn’t it?

Sending troops to Kosovo was not sanctioned by the UN, but that’s OK! It was for humanitarian reasons. Don’t get that one either. I still don’t remember any funding stopped to Bin Laden by Clinton. I do know that he was handed Bin Laden on 4 occasions and chose not to act. When he was thrown out of Sudan, Clinton said he had no legal authority to take him. Just ask Sandy Berger, apparently there was something going on he did not want anyone to see or why else would he be under investigation for removing classified documents? He must have spilled ketchup on them; they say OH he is just sloppy. Another pass by the Dems.

And I do remember the WTC being bombed in 1993, embassies in Africa blown up, Khobar towers, the USS Cole to name just a few in the 90s and each and every time his big response was “ We will hunt them down and bring them to justice.” If he had used as much energy going after Bin Laden as he did Bill Gates, we may never have seen the 2nd WTC destruction.

You called what Clinton did in Africa “What the heck you tried” . Keep dreaming. Bush has put his entire presidency on the line by going after terrorists. The right way and not some half baked attempt by launching a missile on an aspirin factory. That is why I respect the man the way I do. I do not respect Clinton. While he was rolling around the Oval Office with intern(s), 70,000 terrorists went through training camps. Terrorists we are stuck with today. And you blame Bush… keep dreaming.

8 years of Clinton at the helm has brought us to where we are today. Left with an economy on the decline, Corporate Scandals, the Internet bust, the World Trade Center, North Korea and it is absolutely amazing that we are back on track and to the credit of the Bush Administration. Not the Dems as you would have us believe.

News Bulletin, France our ally? They hate us! So what! They have always hated us because we have had to save their as—s at least twice. And we find out now that the reasons for not assisting us is because they were taking money from Saddam and his Oil for Food program.

You remind me of my mother, but she is 82 and delusional and has a blind love for Democrats and a hatred for Republicans. She thinks all the world’s problems are Bush 1 and Bush 2’s fault. She doesn’t even mention Clinton in the equation. But again, she is 82 and delusional, what is your excuse?

I am just a stupid democrat who agrees with more than half of the people on earth that the current situation in Iraq is a mess. And my christian beliefs keep me from accepting that people can just starve to death because God forbid the government help them get back on their own two feet and that people have to die everyday because they are blinded by hate. I believe that Hope is on the way! And I want a world were my children will have a better life than I had, and people are happier and Israelis and Palestinians can hold hands and sing Kumbaya! Amd diseases like Alzeimers, and Parkinsons and Muscular Dystrphy will be cured by stem cell research.
Just another stupid democrat that hopes for a brighter future.

Nick,
You should get out the marshmallows and sit around a campfire and sing Kumbayah! Wake up and stop dreaming. All those things that were promised last night; someone else has to pay for. What is wrong with what our parents and grandparents had to do? They worked hard and earned it.

There is nothing for free! Entitlements without accountability is the real spiral here. Where are all these people in America that are starving? We have plenty of means for them to get shelter and food. The right way, by private philanthropic organizations, churches and local communities.

The American people are the most generous people on the planet. We used to take care of ourselves and not depend on the Federal Government. I want to give my money freely and not have it taken from me as the Government decides they know how to spend my money better than me.

The Federal Government is not my parent!

If you think freedom is free, think again. It is not the press that gives us freedom of speech. It is the soldier. We did not get here without the suffering of millions of soldiers. It was not cable news or the press…

Hope Is On The Way is nothing more than a cliché. Go on and believe it if you must, there is not enough “wealthy” people in this country to provide the taxes needed to fund all those programs. Get up and depend on yourself, not the government.

MAW-
It seems you have this abiding affection for a world you hardly know, and would likely hardly appreciate yourself in your time.

You cruise on highways that are a result of a massive public works project. Your car is constructed in accordance with standards and regulations that benefit you enormously. And you listen to a radio that isn’t crowded with unreliable signals because of the laws that govern the airwaves.

However much you complain about it, you live in a world shaped by progressive laws, and its the only world you know. Would you really be at home with government, business and our infrastructure maintained as it was in the early twentieth and late nineteenth centuries?

While’s it’s true there are nonsensical regulations on the books, it’s also true there are necessary ones. While it’s true that some kinds of socialism sap initiative and reward laziness, some have the opposite effect.

It’s easy to cariacture democrats and liberals as closet tyrants and communists, but it’s easy the way any harebrained generalization is easy: one can only make it in the absence of a critical examination of the subject.

MAW pls read this Newsweek international edition

I will select my favourite highlights…
“Like everyone, Henrick got his education (he has a bachelor’s degree in creative arts) free. When his mother, a nurse, needed a lung transplant last year, the state totally covered the expensive operation.”

and

“What’s more, Berlin-based Transparency International ranks the Danish government as one of the three least corrupt in the world, along with those of Finland and Iceland.”

You should get out the marshmallows and sit around a campfire and sing Kumbayah! Wake up and stop dreaming. All those things that were promised last night; someone else has to pay for. What is wrong with what our parents and grandparents had to do? They worked hard and earned it.There is nothing for free! Entitlements without accountability is the real spiral here. Where are all these people in America that are starving? We have plenty of means for them to get shelter and food. The right way, by private philanthropic organizations, churches and local communities.

The American people are the most generous people on the planet. We used to take care of ourselves and not depend on the Federal Government. I want to give my money freely and not have it taken from me as the Government decides they know how to spend my money better than me.

Well everything starts of as a dream before it becomes reality. Where will our civilization be today if people hadnt dreamed? Someone has to pay for everything and all of us will pay for everything in our own little way. Isnt that the principle of democracy? Rule by the people for the people.
I have come to realise that every generation there are the those who believe that they can strive for a better future for everyone and those that will prefer the status quo. But thank God for those who fought for change, right from the beginning of our country the status quo has been redefined from age to age sometimes slowly sometimes abruptly. And every American generation can proudly that its life is better than the one before it, directly or indirectly because of the federal government. The history of man isnt a history of individuals but a history of civilizations and empires, cultures and cooperativity.

We used to take care of ourselves and not depend on the Federal Government. I want to give my money freely and not have it taken from me as the Government decides they know how to spend my money better than me.

Do you know what this is called? It is called the third world. Everyone fends for themselves, social amenities that you take for granted like electricity and water are glarringly absent. The rich build 20 foot high walls around their homes so that they can sleep at night but some nights armed bandits break into their homes and some nights everyone gets killed just for a few hundred dollars. Its a dog eat dog world with little social mobility and corrupt governments. You are not taxed and you get nothing in return. Every single book your child requires is bought by you, every single pill you mother requires is bought by you, every single clean drop of water you use is boiled, filtered and treated by you, you maintain the roads around your house because if you dont no one will, you provide your own electricity with your own generator and you pay for every drop of diesel with you own money, trash is burned on the streets because thats the way that doesnt cost anyone any money.
Thats the way the well-off in half of our world live. Look it up for yourself if you dont believe me.
If you think you can spend that money that you pay in taxes better than the government can then please open your eyes to the reality.

Republicans focus narrowly on their values and ideas thinking that everybody else in the country should follow the things they think are right and they do not want to pay for it. Whereas, the Democrats cover a much broader base of values and ideas and everybody has to pay because all people benefit from a better life if people are good contributing members of society. Republicans do try to divide the country by saying they are pro-life which to me is not a statement for just babies, but for all life. The actions that they take do not support what they say about their stance on life. War is not pro-life, pollution is not pro-life, not supporting the poor is not pro-life (heat, a/c, food, health insurance),not publicizing information on deadly insulation is not pro-life, less police protection is not pro-life, supporting assault weapons and nuclear research is not pro-life, the death penalty is not pro-life (many are innocent - check out Illinois), cutting money from the alternative to abortion plans is not pro-life (missouridems.org). It really says something when you do not want to put your money where mouth is.

Republicans do not want gay marriage. As, Christians we are not supposed to agree with everyone but accept them for who they are. I am not saying what my position is on this, but I can still be a Christian and accept and support my neighbor for who they are. After, all most everyone I know is not perfect when it comes to sin.

Republicans cater to the rich and neglect the poor. Everyone was not created equally in this world, and we as a nation together we should feel proud that we are helping people make it(yes, through programs). There should not be anyone who has to live on streets whether they lacked opportunity or have mental problems. Republicans don’t support minimum wage increases, and I would like to see them live on minimum wage. Another, reason we have to have programs in this country is because Republicans are usually the owners and executives in business and they tend to be greedy and not giving. So, the average worker starts at a low rate and gets a very small wage increase each year and the ceo gets a million dollars the same year.

If Republicans care about all people - — then they would vote for someone who actually cares and assists the people as a whole to live and be better citizens. That would be a vote for John Kerry.

Nick,
Please refer to my favorite highlight…

Denmark : Potemkin Village (posted March 6, 2002)

Danish politicians proudly proclaims that Denmark is the most egalitarian country in the world. They may be right. The obsession with equality delivers a crushing, daily blow to anyone with a new idea or the inkling to cultivate an ability that surpasses the norm. Young people have virtually no chance to improve their lot in life, to take risks, to make it big through innovation and entrepreneurship.

Excellent and hard work are not rewarded by a system that systematically levels the population into a huge homogenous middle class, whose standard of living advances only incrementally and in ways that flout economic priorities. A total tax level that approaches 70 percent is a relentless and debilitating reminder that this country desires no personal economic achievement and no accumulation of wealth.

And yet many people seem to be happy with this system, somewhat like the masses of Huxley’s Brave New World. Of course it sets up a dynamic that harms everyone in the long run, but people don’t seem to understand or care about this. Equality and stability are regarded as more important than progress and freedom.

A heritage of honesty and hard work are marvelous tools for papering over the failures of welfarism and subtle servitude. With the right attitude, even a prison population can settle into a comfortable and egalitarian existence, one that might even impress Queen Catherine passing by on a boat. But lacking energy, enterprise, entrepreneurship, and freedom, such systems of economic control exact a huge toll with the passage of time.

I worry a lot less about being a third world country than I do about Kerry’s promises. Do the math Nick. It can not be done without creating something like this.

In 2002, the lowest marginal income tax level is 44.31 percent, then it increases to 49.77 percent and 63.33 percent. Forty percent of the working people pay the top marginal tax rate of 63.33 percent, which applies to all income over $33,000.

‘Excellent and hard work’ will be rewarded in a system that everyone can achieve and strive for a better life. It is what made us the great country that we are. For heavens sake, socialism is what you are referring to. That experiment has already been tried and failed.

You need to do the research, Kerry’s promises revenues in the amount of aproximately $600 billion in tax increases and $3 to $ trillion in tax increases. Do you really want to go down that path? Where there is no longer a desire for anyone to achieve or strive to do better? I don’t

Nick,
here is the link

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=905

enjoy! And be sure to let me know your thoughts, as if I needed to ask.

And yet many people seem to be happy with this system

Those poor misguided happy people. It just tears my heart out. Boo hoo. MAW, if you want help lobbying for a humanitarian military invasion of Denmark to help those oppressed happy people, let me know. I’m American Pundit, and I’m reporting for duty!

Seriously, I would take anything from the Ludwig von Mises Institute (based in beautiful Auburn Alabama) with a grain of salt. Though I did enjoy reading their, “Are you an Austrian?” quiz.

Cindy,
Where did you get the idea that giving people everything they need truly helps them in the long run? Were you taught to clean your room, help with the chores, do your homework, help out with your brothers and sisters when needed? Were you raised like that and did your parents teach you to go out into the world and strive to achieve your best and that success will come if you work hard and take challenges in life?

Maybe not or maybe they did. Lets hope they did. If they did then you would know what the true meaning of being a Republican is. It is not something that you made up in your mind because it justifies your selfish attitude of this country.

Believe it or not, Republicans think that Democrats are the selfish ones here, because Democrats want to deny everyone their right to succeed by following the idea that we are not good enough to take care of ourselves, spend our money ourselves, decide what is in the best interests ourselves. Yes, they must do all of this for you. You can not do it with out us.

You wrote
Whereas, the Democrats cover a much broader base of values and ideas and everybody has to pay because all people benefit from a better life if people are good contributing members of society.

Republicans do not mind paying a tax and pay it willingly, especially when the tax is fair. But look at what we have here. 2% of the population pays 45% of the taxes in this country. Under Bush’s tax cuts 11% do not have to pay anything. There is not enough income in that 2% to generate the revenues needed for Kerry’s promises. No country has ever prospered by increasing taxes on upper brackets because it stifles growth and ingenuity. Then no one benefits under that plan. See my post to Nick above

Americans are the most generous people on the earth. They take care of their own and help out countries across the planet with aid and services of all kinds. If we continue down a road where we tax the “Wealthy” to the point that it cuts the very lifeblood out of a society, then you will see real anarchy.

This Populist philosophy that Kerry espouses is so much in keeping with J. Peron and his wife Evita AKA Teresa….

This idea that Republicans hate gays, or neglect the poor is preposterous and simple-minded thinking. I know you are smart enough to know better than that. Don’t espouse things unless you can back it up. If that were true then you have accused half of this country of being evil. I choose not to believe that half the people in the country are evil-minded as you say. No, I know they are not evil. I choose to believe that all Americans are kind and generous but have a different way of achieving that balance.

Republican don’t support automatic minimum wage increases because minimum wage was not supposed to be something everyone achieves or strives for. Again, it takes away their right to strive and do better. Which is where Democrats would like to keep everyone. Believe it or not, compassion is not keeping people in minimum wage jobs. It is however giving them something they can move towards and reflects itself in how many people do not need minimum wage jobs or welfare. Compassion means wanting everyone to succeed by not relying on government handouts, unless they are truly needed to get by. That is the true meaning of compassion.

Automatic minimum wage increases cuts the knees out from under small business owners and will either be passed down to the consumer, causing inflation, or a reduction in work force.

As best as I can tell, Democrats want everyone to stay in that lower bracket, exist on minimum wages and welfare so they can appeal to the populists and stay in power. That is the real motive here. Staying in power at any cost even on the backs of the poor by keeping them there.

I know this thinking is more challenging than the party line you are used to. But it is real and exists in America today. So get your head out of the sand, where Kerry’s head is.

I can feel the posts coming with my statements, So I am off to the movies. Will check later….

Good posting…

MAW:

I am genuinely confused by the sentiment expressed in your comment. You seem somehow to be confusing the words minimum and maximum with your statements that minimum wage should not be all that people aspire to, and that the democrats want people to remain at minimum wage jobs and not succeed. Minimum wage is the lower limit for salaries, not the upper limit.. how does imposing a lower limit prevent anyone from striving to reach higher goals?