I'm sorry, but not matter how many times people argue that the republican party is a diverse party I tend to disagree. Most of the party's stances socially are what would be labeled "Conservative" as well as economically. There are moderates in the party but who's a heavy hitter that's moderate? I don't mean a heavy hitter for those who study politics everyday, I mean the people who make public news that the "Average Joe" reads about. I can't recall any. It really does seem like a conservative tent.
The Dems have the same problem. They seem to cater to every fringe belief system in the United States and the heavy hitters are basically huge social democrats. I think the party that goes moderate first will start getting more votes. At least they will get mine because the extreme left/ extreme right battle in the White House has left a sour taste in my mouth for either of the 2 parties.
The problem with the Republicans is not that the conservatives lack willingness to compromise. The problem is that groups lesser in size and in energy expect to sit at the head of the table, and dictate terms to the great unwashed.
The Terri Schiavo case was an example where the libertarians at worst should have abstained in the interest of intro-party comity, and logically should have helped since life is supposed to be the number one virtue. But I'm still waiting for libertarians to come out against abortion which is the logical consequence of their philosophy.
However, I'm glad to see the Porkbusters campaign being undertaken by Prof. Reynolds. I was beginning to think the fiscal cons were just whiners, but here they are exerting energy and leadership instead of carping at other people doing the same. So bravo to the Porkbusters, I say. And lets see some more action along these lines.
Less complaints about energetic conservatives, and more getting out and doing something good.
And one last question: Why can't we have a leader who is anti-abortion and neoconservative and pork bbq-ing, and stands for Constitutional originalism? I stand for all those.
The Socons are broad-minded it seems to me. Its the other groups that have their special interests. A socon would usually vote quite happily for lesser taxes, and less pork. He's just not happy to trade less pork for the murder of children.
Which should be an eminently understandable position. And it would be if certain people were libertarian rather than libertine.
And yes, I know what libertarians would say in response.
"Its not a person so therefore it doesn't get a person's rights. If it did, it would. But it doesn't."
And I would just have to say.
"Are you sure. I mean, stone cold, 100% percent sure. Because otherwise you are playing Russian Roullette. And even if you are 1% unsure, well I certainly would not point a pistol at my head, a pistol with a hundred chambers and one bullet, and pull the trigger. Even for a million bucks."
take a look a the president's spending and the enormous increase to government. the amount of pork that's been tacked on to so many bills. look even at the proposal for the government to build katrina "trailertowns" rather than housing displaced families in privately owned (and available) tenant housing. anyone who argues that the current republican leadership is dominated by fiscal conservatives is insane.
on social issues i'll grant you that i think the republicans are by-and-large on the same side of the line. moreso than democrats, at least. but the larger question is is their social vision a conservative one? at least from a newt gingrich point of view? the idea that the government can and should step in and interfere in the private lives of citizens facing personal decisions about death, marriage, abortion, or other private decisions doesn't sound like small-government conservativism to me. maybe my definition is outdated? if so, where does conservativism lie today? is it merely defined as some sort of loose restrictivism, where liberalism might be defined as a loose permissivism?
take a look a the president's spending and the enormous increase to government. the amount of pork that's been tacked on to so many bills. look even at the proposal for the government to build katrina "trailertowns" rather than housing displaced families in privately owned (and available) tenant housing. anyone who argues that the current republican leadership is dominated by fiscal conservatives is insane.
They certainly are targeting the fiscal conservative vote with their claims of small government and less taxes. I should have said "puffed themselves up as fiscal conservatives". Is that better? Yes I agree and feel the same way you do. I was discussing more along the lines of the image they portray and not the actual deeds. Most of these deeds aren't promised. "Hey I'm going to ramp up pork and government spending while cutting taxes" just doesn't get votes.
I think the major failing of this President Bush has to do with a mis-diagnosis of why the first President Bush failed to be re-elected.
Somehow, it became received wisdom that the first President Bush lost to Clinton/Perot because 1) he failed to understand the concerns of average people, and 2) he was inadequate in his capacity to emote sympathy for the victims of Hurricane Andrew.
So this President, seeking to avoid the "mistakes" of his father's Presidency has gone out of his way to shovel largess on any and every supplicant for the national tax dollar. This is why there is no fiscal discipline whatsoever. This is why there have been no veto's of bloated spending bills. W is afraid of being labeled uncaring. It is his Achilles heal.
I personally believe that the first President Bush lost because 1) the slight economic recession that just preceded his re-election bid, 2) he violated his pledge not to raise taxes, and 3) he failed to complete the job in Gulf War I by leaving Hussein in power.
But I've heard the accusations about his lack of caring after Andrew, and also the story about the grocery store scanner. So has Young Bush. So he promises government largess and throws money at every problem - even while cutting taxes. He, like other politicians before him, is trying to buy the political loyalties of Americans in order to establish a Republican dominance.
I don't know if his strategy will work. But I am tired of the notion that money is the solution. Bad School? Throw money. Terrorist attack? Pay off families of victims with unreasonably generous amounts as if the US Government was responsible for the attacks, not a sworn enemy. Medicare? Prescription Drug Benefit. Airline Security? The bloated TSA beaurocracy. Katrina? An unprecendented promise to buy off a whole state of voters.
The Dems have the same problem. They seem to cater to every fringe belief system in the United States and the heavy hitters are basically huge social democrats. I think the party that goes moderate first will start getting more votes. At least they will get mine because the extreme left/ extreme right battle in the White House has left a sour taste in my mouth for either of the 2 parties.
The Terri Schiavo case was an example where the libertarians at worst should have abstained in the interest of intro-party comity, and logically should have helped since life is supposed to be the number one virtue. But I'm still waiting for libertarians to come out against abortion which is the logical consequence of their philosophy.
However, I'm glad to see the Porkbusters campaign being undertaken by Prof. Reynolds. I was beginning to think the fiscal cons were just whiners, but here they are exerting energy and leadership instead of carping at other people doing the same. So bravo to the Porkbusters, I say. And lets see some more action along these lines.
Less complaints about energetic conservatives, and more getting out and doing something good.
And one last question: Why can't we have a leader who is anti-abortion and neoconservative and pork bbq-ing, and stands for Constitutional originalism? I stand for all those.
The Socons are broad-minded it seems to me. Its the other groups that have their special interests. A socon would usually vote quite happily for lesser taxes, and less pork. He's just not happy to trade less pork for the murder of children.
Which should be an eminently understandable position. And it would be if certain people were libertarian rather than libertine.
"Its not a person so therefore it doesn't get a person's rights. If it did, it would. But it doesn't."
And I would just have to say.
"Are you sure. I mean, stone cold, 100% percent sure. Because otherwise you are playing Russian Roullette. And even if you are 1% unsure, well I certainly would not point a pistol at my head, a pistol with a hundred chambers and one bullet, and pull the trigger. Even for a million bucks."
take a look a the president's spending and the enormous increase to government. the amount of pork that's been tacked on to so many bills. look even at the proposal for the government to build katrina "trailertowns" rather than housing displaced families in privately owned (and available) tenant housing. anyone who argues that the current republican leadership is dominated by fiscal conservatives is insane.
on social issues i'll grant you that i think the republicans are by-and-large on the same side of the line. moreso than democrats, at least. but the larger question is is their social vision a conservative one? at least from a newt gingrich point of view? the idea that the government can and should step in and interfere in the private lives of citizens facing personal decisions about death, marriage, abortion, or other private decisions doesn't sound like small-government conservativism to me. maybe my definition is outdated? if so, where does conservativism lie today? is it merely defined as some sort of loose restrictivism, where liberalism might be defined as a loose permissivism?
They certainly are targeting the fiscal conservative vote with their claims of small government and less taxes. I should have said "puffed themselves up as fiscal conservatives". Is that better? Yes I agree and feel the same way you do. I was discussing more along the lines of the image they portray and not the actual deeds. Most of these deeds aren't promised. "Hey I'm going to ramp up pork and government spending while cutting taxes" just doesn't get votes.
Somehow, it became received wisdom that the first President Bush lost to Clinton/Perot because 1) he failed to understand the concerns of average people, and 2) he was inadequate in his capacity to emote sympathy for the victims of Hurricane Andrew.
So this President, seeking to avoid the "mistakes" of his father's Presidency has gone out of his way to shovel largess on any and every supplicant for the national tax dollar. This is why there is no fiscal discipline whatsoever. This is why there have been no veto's of bloated spending bills. W is afraid of being labeled uncaring. It is his Achilles heal.
I personally believe that the first President Bush lost because 1) the slight economic recession that just preceded his re-election bid, 2) he violated his pledge not to raise taxes, and 3) he failed to complete the job in Gulf War I by leaving Hussein in power.
But I've heard the accusations about his lack of caring after Andrew, and also the story about the grocery store scanner. So has Young Bush. So he promises government largess and throws money at every problem - even while cutting taxes. He, like other politicians before him, is trying to buy the political loyalties of Americans in order to establish a Republican dominance.
I don't know if his strategy will work. But I am tired of the notion that money is the solution. Bad School? Throw money. Terrorist attack? Pay off families of victims with unreasonably generous amounts as if the US Government was responsible for the attacks, not a sworn enemy. Medicare? Prescription Drug Benefit. Airline Security? The bloated TSA beaurocracy. Katrina? An unprecendented promise to buy off a whole state of voters.
ENOUGH ALREADY!!