No Surrender

[Hel'n]

OP-ED COLUMNIST
No Surrender
By PAUL KRUGMAN

President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.

Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.

This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback.

I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality.

Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes.

So what should the Democrats do?

One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition.

Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.

But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base.

Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage.

Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base.

In fact, they have made good strides, showing much more unity and intensity than anyone thought possible a year ago. But for the lingering aura of 9/11, they would have won.

What they need to do now is develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year.

Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will.

It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.


E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ei=5006&en=abb533bc6cfdc7c7&ex=1100235600&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

[SBK]

As a conservative I love this guys attitude. Keep it up! Without a change of direction of the party and the parties leaders we can expect more of the same, which is a-ok by me.

Keep telling yourself Mr. Krugman, to "keep up the intensity," and "future events will offer opportunities!"

I don't care how many times you tell someone dog crap tastes good, no event, or amount of times you tell them that will make em believe it.

[Raiderhader]

I love it. The Democratic party civil war is about to begin. Let the in-fighting commence.


And to the Republicans, let us not sit on our laurels while this power struggle is taking place, let's set about moving a conservative agenda that would make The Gipper proud. Because if we do not take advantage of this opportunity, we are bigger idiots than they are.

[Adam]

I'm just waiting for Ted Kennedy to come out and say, once again, that the only problem with the Democrats is that they aren't liberal enough.

[SBK]

I love it. The Democratic party civil war is about to begin. Let the in-fighting commence.


And to the Republicans, let us not sit on our laurels while this power struggle is taking place, let's set about moving a conservative agenda that would make The Gipper proud. Because if we do not take advantage of this opportunity, we are bigger idiots than they are.

:clap: No doubt. Seem to be doing a good job for the last decade, at least keeping power I should say. Time to eliminate income taxes ROFL.

[Adam]

Time to eliminate income taxes ROFL.

I'm on board.

[SBK]

I'm on board.

There has been a lot of discussion in the gov't about changing the tax code. Whether that would be a flat tax or a consumption tax is up to debate, but the system is in dire need of a change.

My proposal would be to eliminate all witholding. Make everyone physically write out a check to the IRS like I do, taxes would go down in a friggin hurry. That would speed up discussion just a wee bit. :thumb:

[BIG_DADDY]

Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will.

It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.


E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ei=5006&en=abb533bc6cfdc7c7&ex=1100235600&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

Right, gear up, nice rhetoric. This guy has no answers those are in my signature.

[BIG_DADDY]

BTW this is a terrible article Hel'n.

[BIG_DADDY]

BTW this is a terrible article Hel'n, nothing more than an agry bunch of whining.

[SBK]

BTW this is a terrible article Hel'n, nothing more than an agry bunch of whining.

It's classic Krugman! Here's to the democrats embracing his ideas for the party platform! :toast:

[Joe Seahawk]

First of all, this election was definitely rigged. I have no doubt about it. It's a statistical impossibility that Bush got 8 million more votes than he got last time. In 2000, he got 15 million votes from right-wing Christians, and there are approximately 19 million of them in the country. They were eager to get the other 4 million. That was pretty much Karl Rove's strategy to get Bush elected.

But given Bush's low popularity ratings and the enormous number of new voters -- who skewed Democratic -- there is no way in the world that Bush got 8 million more votes this time. I think it had a lot to do with the electronic voting machines. Those machines are completely untrustworthy, and that's why the Republicans use them. Then there's the fact that the immediate claim of Ohio was not contested by the news media -- when Andrew Card came out and claimed the state, not only were the votes in Ohio not counted, they weren't even all cast. I would have to hear a much stronger argument for the authenticity, or I should say the veracity, of this popular vote for Bush before I'm willing to believe it. If someone can prove to me that it happened, that Bush somehow pulled 8 million magic votes out of a hat, OK, I'll accept it. I'm an independent, not a Democrat, and I'm not living in denial.

And that's not even talking about Florida, which is about as Democratic a state as Guatemala used to be. The news media is obliged to make the Republicans account for all these votes, and account for the way they were counted. Simply to embrace this result as definitive is irrational. But there is every reason to question it ... I find it beyond belief that the press in this formerly democratic country would not have made the integrity of the electoral system a front page, top-of-the-line story for the last three years. I worked and worked and worked to get that story into the media, and no one touched it until your guy did.

I actually got invited to a Kerry fundraiser so I could talk to him about it. I raised the issue directly with him and with Teresa. Teresa was really indignant and really concerned, but Kerry just looked down at me -- he's about 9 feet tall -- and I could tell it just didn't register. It set off all his conspiracy-theory alarms and he just wasn't listening.

More...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/11/04/electio...


:deevee: :deevee: :deevee: :deevee: :deevee:

[cdcox]

According to Krugman, Bush won only because of 9/11. So he paints the Democratic woes as a short term trend. How then deos he explain the erosion of Democrats in both houses of congress and among Governers. I think the wounds are much deeper.

To be more appealing, Democrats must shed the most liberal aggendas they cling to. Gun control, affirmative action, gay marriage, national heath care, expanding entitlements, economic protectionism in all forms, extreme environmentalism must go. These ideas either belong to a socialist past that history has tossed to the dust bin or are so bizzare that most Americans can't identify with anyone that would embrace them.

Many of the large cities where Democrats live and rule have made enormous investments in the infrastructure of their cities. These investments are revitalizing these cities and turning them into huge economic engines. This spirit of investment, turned to the country as a whole, could solidify America's economic postion in the world economy. De-invest in entitlement and reinvest in enabling people to contribute ot society. Make individuals responsible for their choices (there is a morality platform for you) and enable those who make the right ones by investing in education. Make education more efficient by allowing market forces to have bearing and hold students accountable for bad choices by allowing schools to remove them. Invest in good schools and close bad ones. A stong economic America lifts eveyones fortunes.

Through their cities, Democrats have shown they can invest smartly to make opportunity for those who make good choices and work hard. Democrats who would center their platform around investment, opportunity, and individual responsibility would at least make me consider the options.

[Hel'n]

Bush won because of playing to folk's homophobia... We all know that...

So now, instead of looking over one shoulder, I look over both shoulders...

I feel like it's been declared open season on anyone who is not "normal"...

So now that the rules on civility are out the window... if it's open season on me, it will be open season on you too...

You know, equal un-protection outside the law...

;)

[SBK]

Bush won because of playing to folk's homophobia... We all know that...

So now, instead of looking over one shoulder, I look over both shoulders...

I feel like it's been declared open season on anyone who is not "normal"...

So now that the rules on civility are out the window... if it's open season on me, it will be open season on you too...

You know, equal un-protection outside the law...

;)

Let me just come out and say it.

Bush won because people don't agree with liberalism and the liberal agenda that the dems are putting out there. Until they change that dems will continue to lose both seats and the presidency.

[Joe Seahawk]

I feel like it's been declared open season on anyone who is not "normal"...


;)

What a load!!

[Hel'n]

What a load!!


Try my life and tell me it's a load...

Otherwise, you're being a jackass if you don't know what reality is like for those of us who are "different"...

What world do you live in? White? Male? Straight?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

Smells like a load to me...

[headsnap]

Try my life and tell me it's a load...

Otherwise, you're being a jackass if you don't know what reality is like for those of us who are "different"...

What world do you live in? White? Male? Straight?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

Smells like a load to me...
Hel'n got a renewal on her discrimination card and it looks like she plans to use it...







alot!

[Patriot 21]

What world do you live in? White? Male? Straight?


So if you are "White? Male? Straight?" life is just a joy ride?

I don't know whether to ROFL OR :banghead:

[Bob Dole]

Quite clearly, Fed-Ex figured out where La-La Land is located and people are being allowed to ship their own brains.

[KCTitus]

Everybody's got their own life problems, Hel'n...dont think you're unique in that. Victimology is a pathetic way to live.

Seek God, it helps...

[mikey23545]

Try my life and tell me it's a load...

Otherwise, you're being a jackass if you don't know what reality is like for those of us who are "different"...

What world do you live in? White? Male? Straight?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

Smells like a load to me...


Poor, poor victim....

I hope someday you realize the problem is your loser mentality, just like it is with most liberals.

[Amnorix]

There has been a lot of discussion in the gov't about changing the tax code. Whether that would be a flat tax or a consumption tax is up to debate, but the system is in dire need of a change.

My proposal would be to eliminate all witholding. Make everyone physically write out a check to the IRS like I do, taxes would go down in a friggin hurry. That would speed up discussion just a wee bit. :thumb:

We're 8 TRILLION dollars in debt.

Alot of people wouldn't sign the checks, and then the IRS would need to be 10x bigger than it is to chase all the deadbeats down.

Meanwhile, if we default on our obligations, say hello to a worldwide recession.

Kindly post realistic ideas, rather than fantasies. Changing to a different tax system is feasible. Eliminating withholding (if we keep an income tax system) is not.

[Amnorix]

Although I agree with elements of this article, I disagree with the primary message it intends to impart.

Democrats have failed to win any signficant victories at the national level since President Clinton won in 1996, now EIGHT years ago. We have seen two consecutive President elections go to the Republicans, as well as consistent Republican majorities (albeit small) in both houses of the Congress (except when Jeffords flipped parties).

More of the same will get us exactly that -- more of the same -- with the Republicans dominating the executive and legislative (and soon the judicial) branches of government.

Not that Democrats need to (or can) change directions 180 degrees, but soem elements need to change.

[Cochise]

Amnorix is right and for that reason I hope the Democrats decide to dig in, obstruct more, and become more liberal.

Like I said yesterday, who wants to be the next Tom Daschle? ROFL

The Democratic party needs to figure out what it is. If it's Ted Kennedy's party, then they should all go off to the funny farm and forget about winning elections. If there is a moderate wing left in the Democratic party, they ought to bring some sanity about.

But, as long as McAwful and the rest of the Clintonistas, and the older guard like Teddy Oldsmobile are still around... things are going to look good for Republicans for 8 more years.

[htismaqe]

Bush won because of playing to folk's homophobia... We all know that...

So now, instead of looking over one shoulder, I look over both shoulders...

I feel like it's been declared open season on anyone who is not "normal"...

So now that the rules on civility are out the window... if it's open season on me, it will be open season on you too...

You know, equal un-protection outside the law...

;)

:hmmm:

I don't seem to recall Bush CONSTANTLY mentioning that Mary Cheney is a lesbian...

[Baby Lee]

I feel like it's been declared open season on anyone who is not "normal"...
1. How you feel is on you.
2. That feeling is in no wise justified.

But by all means, feel free to straw man the issue into a 'woe is me' platform.

[Bowser]

Democrats pooped their britches. They (woulda, coulda) should have won, if they had found a candidate who was IN THE LEAST appealing to anyone outside his demographic. He instilled no confidence in the modereates and the swing voters.

This election was just like the OJ trial. Everyone knew he was guilty, but the incompetent tits prosecuting him blew their chance to prove it. Same with the election. The White House was ripe for the picking, and the Dems pissed away a golden chance to step up by nominating a guy "who wasn't Bush". Hopefully, this will be a huge wake up call, for their sake.

I heard Jim Rome on Monday say that he was voting for his guy, just because he wasn't the other guy. And pathetically, that's what it came down to for me, as well. Hell of a way to decide who you think should be one of the most powerful men on the planet.

[Baby Lee]

1. How you feel is on you.
2. That feeling is in no wise justified.

But by all means, feel free to straw man the issue into a 'woe is me' platform.
Or, take comfort in the words of Andrew Sullivan [and an e-mail from one of his readers]

An important point:
We are often caught up in a moment to see how good we really have it. I am one who believes that civil marriage is the ONLY way to have equal rights for gay Americans in the US. That said I am not the least bit surprised with the losses in all 11 states -- I expected it!
We live in a wonderfully diverse country, and I know that some do not appreciate my "lifestyle", but that has not hindered me from having a satisfying life. There are many forms of bigotry and hatred, we just can not allow those fears to blind the path to success. I am now 45 years old -- If you would have told me back in college (1980) that I would be living openly as a gay American, with a successful career and a wonderful partner of over eleven years - I do not think that I would have thought that possible.
Social change is a gradual process-- different in every society - push too hard and you get "don't ask don't tell" - or the hateful "Defense of Marriage Act" - and now the the current losses. John Kerry or the Democratic party is not the place that gay America should be placing all their faith in the future -- they will surely be disappointed. Bill Clinton signed 'don't ask don't tell" twelve years ago! - A huge setback.
I for one, am very grateful for the social freedoms that I have, and look forward to the expansion of them that will naturally come in the future. I have nothing but optimism on this front, and fully except to see civil marriage in my lifetime."

_________________________

I agree with much of this. We have to strike a balance. We should not minimize or excuse the base appeals that the GOP have been making. But we should also realize how far we've come. Even this emailer understates it: We do have civil marriage in his lifetime. Gay couples married today in Massachusetts are, under state law, as married as any heterosexual couple. Even this president has now broken with his social conservative base and endorsed civil unions for gay couples. Rather than demonize him, we have to hold him to his word. The world is not evenly divided between those who totally accept gay relationships and those who "hate" us. It's far more complicated, and many, many voters for Bush do not share the loathing of the far right. We cannot and should not alienate these people. That's what Bill Bennett wants. Most fair-minded people are on our side in the end. Yes, this is painful. Yes, it is frightening. But the broader truth is far more hopeful. I've said it before; and it's worth repeating: This is America. Equality will win in the end. If we keep the faith. If we refuse to accept the cynicism of those who would use our differences to win power. In the end, they have power. But we have the truth. And that's all that really matters in the end.

[HC_Chief]

What a bunch of whining, crybaby, out-of-touch sore losers.

Way to endear yourself to the populace! :thumb:

And they wonder why they got soundly thrashed... jumping from reason to reason, always skipping over the one, horrible, inconceivable truth: their whacked-out no-values attitude is why they lost and why they will continue to lose. Cripes, it's a comedy of errors.

[SBK]

We're 8 TRILLION dollars in debt.

Alot of people wouldn't sign the checks, and then the IRS would need to be 10x bigger than it is to chase all the deadbeats down.

Meanwhile, if we default on our obligations, say hello to a worldwide recession.

Kindly post realistic ideas, rather than fantasies. Changing to a different tax system is feasible. Eliminating withholding (if we keep an income tax system) is not.

That's the point. The debt is out of control because the gov't spends too much, not because they don't tax enough.

Gov't can't take money in, and folks actually see what they pay in taxes there would be discussion now. Most if not all of the pork would be gone.

Will it happen, no, but in the long run it would be a great thing.

[Garcia Bronco]

Time to get rid of social security in it's current form...get the school vounchers....and get rid of the activist judges.

[ChiTown]

:hmmm:

I don't seem to recall Bush CONSTANTLY mentioning that Mary Cheney is a lesbian...


:thumb:

Yep. That dead horse belongs to the Democrats, and especially Kerry for beating that thing to a pulp. What a moron.

[homey]

I can't believe some of you still see bush as a moderate. He's got the wool pulled over 51% of this nation's eyes.

[KCTitus]

I can't believe some of you still see bush as a moderate. He's got the wool pulled over 51% of this nation's eyes.

Another one yet to figure it out...

[Amnorix]

That's the point. The debt is out of control because the gov't spends too much, not because they don't tax enough.

Gov't can't take money in, and folks actually see what they pay in taxes there would be discussion now. Most if not all of the pork would be gone.

Will it happen, no, but in the long run it would be a great thing.

You're talking about the annual debt. I'm talking about the DEFICIT. This country owes $8 TRILLION and you're basically advocating a stance that would end up with us defaulting, causing massive global economic instability. Sorry, it's insane, and it's just not going to happen.

In the long run, I don't consider worldwide depressions a great thing. Sorry.

I'm all for cutting pork, as I've said many times.

[Amnorix]

Another one yet to figure it out...

Bush is definitely NOT moderate. But that hardly matters. He was either closer to the center than Kerry, or at the very least better able to connect with the voters and sell HIS ideas TO the moderates than Kerry.

To say Bush is a moderate is flatly ridiculous. He's not, but he doesn't need to be.

[Raiderhader]

Bush is definitely NOT moderate. But that hardly matters. He was either closer to the center than Kerry, or at the very least better able to connect with the voters and sell HIS ideas TO the moderates than Kerry.

To say Bush is a moderate is flatly ridiculous. He's not, but he doesn't need to be.


Coming from someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum whom Bush claims to represent, I can assure you that he is to a moderate. No true conservative would have grown medicare the way he did. He spends like a liberal and cuts taxes like a conservative. He may be righ of center, but he no Reagan.

Unless he cares to prove otherwise this term......

[BIG_DADDY]

Bush won because of playing to folk's homophobia... We all know that...


;)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight so now if people think that marriage is only for hetero's their homophobic, OK. Domestic partnership is the only way to go. It's the Dems that keep holding to ideals that are not shared by most Americans.

[BIG_DADDY]

You're talking about the annual debt. I'm talking about the DEFICIT. This country owes $8 TRILLION and you're basically advocating a stance that would end up with us defaulting, causing massive global economic instability. Sorry, it's insane, and it's just not going to happen.

In the long run, I don't consider worldwide depressions a great thing. Sorry.

I'm all for cutting pork, as I've said many times.

This administration needs to cut down on spending BIG TIME, on that we agree.

[MadProphetMargin]

This administration needs to cut down on spending BIG TIME, on that we agree.


Let me know when Bush uses the veto.

The next spending bill vetoed will be the first.

[Iowanian]

Its not really a pitty party without hats.

Happy Birthday heln.

[Amnorix]

Coming from someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum whom Bush claims to represent, I can assure you that he is to a moderate. No true conservative would have grown medicare the way he did. He spends like a liberal and cuts taxes like a conservative. He may be righ of center, but he no Reagan.

Unless he cares to prove otherwise this term......

Other than not cutting spending, everything else is significantly right of center.

Let me put it this way -- if you slice the electorate into thirds, you'd have the 33% most to the right, the 33% in the middle, and the 33% to the left. You could call them conservative, moderate and liberal, right?

So let's put it on a scale -- 0 to 100. 100 is a liberal whack job, and 0 is a right wing nut case. Are we agreed that works?

I'd put Bush at about a 25. Definitely not higher than 30.

He's conservative on EVERY social issue.
His tax positions are very conservative.
international relations -- very conservative.

Note -- I'm not saying he's at 10 -- which is pretty much a right wing nut job.

Note also -- spending cuts are VERY unpopular politically. I'm sure if he had his druthers he would cut spending, but he didn't want to incur the political wrath for it for him or his party.

There's also the "starve the beast" theory in terms of growing the deficit until it's so large the US is forced to cut spending. That may be the greater goal of the Administration. Certainly they appear to pay nothing but lip service to the deficit...

[Raiderhader]

Other than not cutting spending, everything else is significantly right of center.

Let me put it this way -- if you slice the electorate into thirds, you'd have the 33% most to the right, the 33% in the middle, and the 33% to the left. You could call them conservative, moderate and liberal, right?

So let's put it on a scale -- 0 to 100. 100 is a liberal whack job, and 0 is a right wing nut case. Are we agreed that works?

I'd put Bush at about a 25. Definitely not higher than 30.

He's conservative on EVERY social issue.
His tax positions are very conservative.
international relations -- very conservative.

Note -- I'm not saying he's at 10 -- which is pretty much a right wing nut job.

Note also -- spending cuts are VERY unpopular politically. I'm sure if he had his druthers he would cut spending, but he didn't want to incur the political wrath for it for him or his party.

There's also the "starve the beast" theory in terms of growing the deficit until it's so large the US is forced to cut spending. That may be the greater goal of the Administration. Certainly they appear to pay nothing but lip service to the deficit...


You cannot forget the ultra-liberal CFR that he supported and signed into law.

Also take into account his position on the ridiculous assualt weapons ban which was not a ban on true assualt weapons, he wasn't going to force the issue, but said he would sign its renewal if it reached his desk. He was for raising the legal age to own a handgun in the state of Texas from 18 to 21 when he was governor. He supports mandatory gun locks. He is more moderate than you are willing to give him credit for.

The Administration's ultimate goal may be to "starve the beast", but that is a dangerous way to go IMO. I suppose it is better than spending just because he likes to spend, but not by much.

[Cochise]

Whatever... he has a semi-conservative stance on social issues but he doesn't have a completely far right stance. He's got a moderated coservative view on social issues.

He spends a lot closer to the way a liberal would.
He wants to open the borders and give amnesty to illegals.
He is against abortion but with 3 exceptions
He cut taxes but wasn't pressing a national sales tax or flat tax or anything like that.
He wants more local control of schools but not to abolish the NEA or significantly privatise it.
He has been in a health care spending contest with both the people he's run against, rather than assert that it's not the government's place to pay for everything for everyone.
He didn't want to use government funding for stem cells, but didn't press for a total ban

If you think Bush is some extreme conservative then you may be too far away from the center yourself ot be able to tell the difference.

He's not as centrist as a McCain is, but there's no way you can drop him on the far right with people like Pat Buchanan, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, etc. He's about as conservative as your average Republican congressman which is a little too moderate for my tastes.

Go over to freerepublic or something, or read any conservative mag like AC or the weekly standard... Bush is seen by conservatives often as wishy-washy and too close to the center. The notion that he is some ultra-right winger is ludicrous.

[Raiderhader]

Whatever... he has a semi-conservative stance on social issues but he doesn't have a completely far right stance. He's got a moderated coservative view on social issues.

He spends a lot closer to the way a liberal would.
He wants to open the borders and give amnesty to illegals.
He is against abortion but with 3 exceptions
He cut taxes but wasn't pressing a national sales tax or flat tax or anything like that.
He wants more local control of schools but not to abolish the NEA or significantly privatise it.
He has been in a health care spending contest with both the people he's run against, rather than assert that it's not the government's place to pay for everything for everyone.
He didn't want to use government funding for stem cells, but didn't press for a total ban

If you think Bush is some extreme conservative then you may be too far away from the center yourself ot be able to tell the difference.

He's not as centrist as a McCain is, but there's no way you can drop him on the far right with people like Pat Buchanan, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, etc. He's about as conservative as your average Republican congressman which is a little too moderate for my tastes.

Go over to freerepublic or something, or read any conservative mag like AC or the weekly standard... Bush is seen by conservatives often as wishy-washy and too close to the center. The notion that he is some ultra-right winger is ludicrous.


The fact that you and I consider him moderate ought to tell people something.....

[homey]

Has any other President ever cut taxes during a war?

[SBK]

The fact that you and I consider him moderate ought to tell people something.....

He's too moderate for my tastes as well. He's spending money like it's going out of style.

He has been pro business and investment, which Im sure comes from his background, but fiscally Im not so sure.

That being said, I think he's the right guy for the job right now. :thumb:

[Bearcat2005]

Great another article from an out of touch liberal!

[Slayer]

The one thing I like about these Democraps is that right when the going gets rough, they make things harder by splitting into more parties...and they wonder how the Republicans became so popular in the 1800's ROFL

[MadProphetMargin]

The one thing I like about these Democraps is that right when the going gets rough, they make things harder by splitting into more parties...and they wonder how the Republicans became so popular in the 1800's ROFL

The GOP became so popular because the whigs (who were a conservative party at the time...the GOP being called the "radical republicans") imploded, not because the dems made any serious mistakes.

[Slayer]

The GOP became so popular because the whigs (who were a conservative party at the time...the GOP being called the "radical republicans") imploded, not because the dems made any serious mistakes.

I'm aware of the fall of the Whigs leading to Republicans and the rise of Lincoln, who had been a powerful Whig...they, however, were not part of my point. When Lincoln was elected in 1860, the Democratic party had split into two parties: Northern Democratic (Stephen Douglas, Lincoln's largest rival, was their candidate) and Southern Democratic (J. C. Breckinridge was their candidate, IIRC). Had the Democrats not split, Douglas would've had about 300,000 more popular votes...and although those were not from states that could've beat him in electoral votes, they would've most definitely would've been able to give him powerful enemies in Congress.

[Calcountry]

Bush won because of playing to folk's homophobia... We all know that...

So now, instead of looking over one shoulder, I look over both shoulders...

I feel like it's been declared open season on anyone who is not "normal"...

So now that the rules on civility are out the window... if it's open season on me, it will be open season on you too...

You know, equal un-protection outside the law...

;)
No, the rubhomoinyourfacia rubbed a little too far. Go back in the closet for a little while will ya?