Re-defining "Republican"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 10 2006, 01:04 AM) [snapback]346784[/snapback]</div>

Remember how they came to power in the first place.Not on their own political merit,but rather by assassinating the character of Clinton.
I would guess that they are now revving up their mudslinging apparatus,in order to try to make the Dems appear worse than the Republicans have been.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 10 2006, 02:04 AM) [snapback]346784[/snapback]</div>

You are right. Will they do it? No.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 10 2006, 12:04 AM) [snapback]346784[/snapback]</div>

I'm afraid that the "jackass in elephant clothing" will remain for some time yet.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Nov 10 2006, 03:48 AM) [snapback]346811[/snapback]</div>

As if the Democrats haven't been assassinating Bush's character for the past 6 years.

Never has there been so much venom directed at a president, even during Clinton's years, or for that matter, during Nixon's years.

Don't even begin to try to take the moral high ground on that one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 10 2006, 01:04 AM) [snapback]346784[/snapback]</div>

The reason I as a conservative voted against the Republicans this past week was simple - they abandoned the principles I hold as important and that they used to: small federal government, lower govt spending, less government, securing our borders, etc.

I think thou misreads the tea leaves. This was an important wake-up call. We will see how seriously they take it. If they want to be like the Dems (large spending, higher taxes, open borders, etc) they deserve what they will get. Once they get the message, they will be OK.

And the timing was good for them. Better on an off-year election than during a Presidential election. I still do not see any significant Democratic Presidential timber while the Repubs have two excellent candidates.

 

More flaws, more assassination.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 10 2006, 01:04 AM) [snapback]346784[/snapback]</div>

I think there's the potential for a schism in the Republican party. I don't know if it will happen, but the potential is there. I've already heard a couple of the neo-con pundits --Sean Hannity & Mark Levin in particular-- throwing the "McCain Republicans" under the bus and saying things like "we have to take back our party".

If the Democrats don't go crazy and overboard once they take office, I think it's possible that a schism could occur. For the neo-cons to be marginalized, progressives must make a connection with America. I don't think they made a connection this year ... I think it was just the general populace being fed up. If progressives make that connection, then the more centrist Republicans might see that they don't have to swing far right to get elected.

Unfortunately, the neo-cons aren't going to go away quietly. They're going to continue to hammer the Democrats at every turn. There has to be a reason for the real Republicans to stand up and tell the neo-cons "you had your chance ... we'll take it from here."

 

Every time an election shifts the balance of power from one party to another, there are voices that declare the demise of the losing party, saying it can never again rise to power unless it completely re-invents itself. Sorry to disappoint you: Political power shifts back and forth. The Republicans still control two of the three branches of government. The voters traditionally vote against the president's party in mid-term elections. Tuesday's election might have been a bit more than average, but it's not outside the norm.

As for the neo-cons coming to power by assassinating the character of Clinton, this is laughable! They attempted to assassinate Clinton's character, but he remained extremely popular, even after being impeached and acquitted. If Clinton's character had been the issue, those few thousand votes in Florida would have been irrelevant and Gore would have become president in 2000.

The neo-cons came to power (as I discussed elsewhere) by concerted and effective grass-roots organizing which began after Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 election, which bore its first fruits with the nomination and election of Ronald Reagan. Since then the Republicans have abandoned the traditional conservative values of fiscal responsibility and small government and moved instead to the conservative Christian values of irresponsible debt spending and interference in private people's bedrooms. Demagogery, meanwhile, has remained a staple of both parties, though Bush has raised it to new levels, dragging the nation to new depths.

Bush rode to power on his daddy's back, with indespensible help from his brother, who, as governor of Florida, delivered his state through electoral fraud. (Note, however, that this was nothing out of the ordinary: Both parties use fraud, and always have. In this particular case, the Florida Republicans used it to greater effect than did the Democrats.)

Far from "not working," the neo-conservative "experiment" has been an extremely effective means of manipulating the voters and placing ever more power in the hands of the extreme right ring of the evangelical movement. The hair-thin majorities of the Democratic party in both houses of Congress does not by any means herald in a new age of enlightenment. It is merely a slight reversal, which could easily go either way in the next election. If Democrats become complacent, and assume that the neo-cons are broken, they will lose the next elections.

Of course, I am a pessimist. I expect the worst, and that means that, with small occasional reversals, the most vicious and greedy elements will continue to increase their power, as they have done more or less steadily since this country was founded.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 10 2006, 09:48 AM) [snapback]346869[/snapback]</div>

Illinois - 1960 - Chicago - Daley - Kennedy defeats Nixon
More votes than voters

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Nov 10 2006, 09:35 AM) [snapback]346865[/snapback]</div>

What is the difference between a "neo-con" and a "real Republican"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Nov 10 2006, 09:15 AM) [snapback]346857[/snapback]</div>

Quick quiz: Which party impeached which president on the flimsy excuse of playing hide-the-salami with an intern? If that's not venom, I don't know what is.

High moral ground: Democrats.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Nov 10 2006, 12:48 AM) [snapback]346811[/snapback]</div>

Beyond the smear tactics:

. In 2000 the Republicans won because they advertised themselves as moderate (their first lie).

. In 2004 the Republicans won because they played on people's fears.

. In 2006 the people finally caught on.

This time moderates of all persuasions won.

Nancy Pelosi, a liberal in the 90th percentile, take heed. Don't get the moderates mad.
.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 10 2006, 07:05 AM) [snapback]346871[/snapback]</div>

It's sort of like pornography:

It's hard to define but we all know it when we see it.

You're a neo-con. Eisenhower was a Republican.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Nov 10 2006, 12:15 PM) [snapback]346969[/snapback]</div>

This is better than any definition I could have come up with.

Although I don't think Dr. Berman is a neo-con. I've seen posts from him that indicate otherwise. I think neo-conservative means something different now than what it did when the movement first started. I'm not studied enough to really know.

When I use neo-con, I refer Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and their blind followers. The ones who spend all their time demonizing the Clintons, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, or anyone slightly more than left of center. The ones who use the word "liberal" as an insult. The ones who think the country would be a better place if anyone with opposing viewpoints would just shut up. The ones who say ridiculous things without backing them up.

Yes, this kind of behavior happens on both sides of the aisle. And, yes, when I use neo-con, I'm using it as an epithet.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 10 2006, 12:12 PM) [snapback]346915[/snapback]</div>

Take a look beyond the Capital Building. You would be hard pressed to find more venom slung at Clinton in all 8 years than you would find slung at Bush in just one Barbara Streisand or Whoopi Goldberg concert.

OK, that's maybe a slight exaggeration, but not by much. Taken as a whole, the Democrat Party, at least the vocal elements of it, are a fairly bile filled bunch.

The most "evil" things Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter are tame compared to what I've heard their liberal conterparts say about Bush.

And by the way, since you guys always seem to forget... The impeachment was not because his affair with Monica, but rather because he lied about it in court during a trial about his sexual harrassment of coworkers, where his sexual relations with subordinates was relevant.

You may still consider that a thin excuse, but at least get the excuse right.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Nov 10 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]346990[/snapback]</div>

You say potato, I say potatoe.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 10 2006, 01:04 AM) [snapback]346784[/snapback]</div>

The problem is, our country is like a huge giant (if you'll pardon the metaphor...or is it a simile...arrgh!!) oil tanker. Changing direction takes more than just discussing it and then turning the wheel left or right. There's a *tremendous* amount of inertia, and it takes a whole bunch of time just to actually see the compass begin to spin...let alone the bow begin to move against the horizon.

What's been going on, I think, is that the folks at the helm have been spinning the wheel back and forth madly, without any willingness to stick to a longer term plan that's proactive in nature (has some sort of reason for being independant of other circumstances).

It's our fault, really -- all of us are so much about 'what have you done for me lately?' that the pols have no choice but to follow that lead, or get booted out of office.

Once again, it comes back to us.

Oh, and good morning/afternoon/evening, everyone!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Nov 10 2006, 12:43 PM) [snapback]346990[/snapback]</div>

The difference in the venom-slinging is that all of the venom was slung at Clinton for personal reasons; not job-related. (I can include the lying there...but we've got a pretty sizable liar in office now, too.)

Bush-bashing is based on job performance. Sure I don't think he's very smart, but when first elected (not by me), I gave him credit for surrounding himself with those that were, thereby allowing his cabinet to run the country. I didn't realize then that with those fellows came bad policy and politics--and that's an understatement. I did realize it by 2002, though. His inability to communicate intelligently could only go so far; there has to be policy issues to attract that much vitriole.

Clinton is a womanizer. It sucks. However, he had good policy and good politics for the better part of his time in office. It's harder to sling venom when that was the case--personal attacks only go so far. Of course, as ever, IMHO.

And, as ever, I've always said that we shouldn't have been asking Clinton the question about sex with Lewinsky in the first place. Thank you independent counsel! (but don't get me started on Ken Starr) I didn't want and have never asked to know about Bush's cocaine use or alcoholism. As far as I think, it's none of my business if he's able to do a job well.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Nov 10 2006, 12:43 PM) [snapback]346990[/snapback]</div>

*Sigh* Haven't you learned from your trouncing this past election, just because you say something you wish to be true doesn't make it true? "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." - Ann Coulter. Hahaha! Have lots of liberals die! Very funny!

No, if you want to see REALLY horrible things written about Bush II, wait until the history books are published 50 years from now.

Clinton lied about a blowjob. What got destroyed: One dress.

Bush lied about WMDs and Al Qaeda connection. What got destroyed: Thousands of U.S. soldiers killed, billions of dollars wasted, one country in horrible civil war, terrorists increasing by the hundreds (thousands?) because of this.

Priorities, priorities.

*Sigh* I wish Republicans didn't hate the United States so much.