Again, those may be among the philosophical issues that separate us, but the real issue of this thread is how this administration has manipulated this contingent of voters into blind partisanship, and in-so-doing has created a very dangerous and frightening phenomenon – people who will ignore, try to explain away, excuse or even condone outright illegal activity by their elected representatives. The kind of illegal activity that actually costs people their lives and/or livelihoods, not the kind that, while technically illegal, might, at most, destroy a marriage.
They, for the most part, aren’t hanging their heads in shame that they were hoodwinked into putting these people back in power. They’ve actually bought into the propaganda that this administration has propagated – it’s their way or the highway. Their way or we hate America. Their way or we hate Freedom. It makes me physically ill.
No, it doesn’t depress me that people tend to vote with their pocketbooks sometimes – that seems only natural. It depresses me to see a country, so rich with resources, be so filled with stupid people who are maleable to the influence of evil without questioning the advisability of believing everything they’re fed, just because it’s Party First. It depresses me that people vote based on what other people choose to do in their bedrooms, what kind of car they drive, what charities they contribute to, what activities they involve their children in. It depresses me that people don’t seem to care about more important things, like corruption in their government. That when Valeri Plame’s name was first exposed, everyone, including Republicans, were calling it a crime, but now that it’s coming out that it was Karl Rove, it’s suddenly being redefined and excused. That when time after time after time, evidence proves that the constituents were outright lied to, they don’t even care!
They don’t care.
Party First.
People are actually dying because they don’t care. They don’t care enough to hold their representatives accountable and make it stop.
Or, perhaps, some of us actually believe that the war in Iraq is the right thing to do.
Let me ask you this: what is the correct response? What is it that should be done?
I believe Social Security is broken, and needs to be fixed, and privatization is the best way to go.
I believe that the way to stop the War on Terrorism is to break the backs of the kleptocracies in the Middle East, up to and including warring on them if necessary.
I believe that the current agenda of the environmentalism movement is not a sane, careful attempt to maintain a balance of nature vs. progress, but a hysterical alarmist campaign of doom, and if followed, will destroy this country’s economy.
I believe that universal, government sanctioned health care will cost me more money while giving me even less service. And I believe that the poor will be even more screwed.
I believe that there is no sanction in the U.S. Constitution for abortion, and that it would correctly fall to the states under the 10th Amendment to be decided.
What’s my solution? I can either A) try to find a justification for the Bush Administration, hand-wave it off, and endanger my honor in exchange for having the policies I support enacted; or I can B) correctly decry the Bush administration and have it replaced by an administration that will directly and completely work against all of my above-stated goals and beliefs.
Tell me- did you raise such objections and were you so depressed when Clinton had a pharmaceutical factory bombed? People died there, too, and it’s amazing how the timing of it seemed perfect to try and distract people from the Lewinsky matter. Or did you fall into the exact same position you’re lambasting Republicans for now- privately muttering about it, but publicly stating that it wasn’t nearly so bad as it was portrayed or not nearly so wrong, because to decry Clinton would have meant giving ammunition and solace to people whose agenda is directly opposite your own?
Or maybe it’s a subconscious attempt to win approval from parents. GWB could be trying to out-war Pappy, and I hear Karl Rove wasn’t thrilled to hear he was given up for adoption…
Not even a majority of Republicans believes that. It certainly wasn’t a prominent part of Bush’s campaign platform, was it?
Then you shouldn’t vote for a guy who’ll *ally * with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan instead.
Even a smaller minority of Republicans believe that, either.
There you do have a mainstream position, even though it is based, as you say, on belief rather than analysis.
Don’t try to suggest that the issue is the 10th Amendment rather than the defintion of murder. You can’t find many anti-choice people who’d be just as anti-choice if the issue were settled in the pre-Civil-War manner.
To quit setting up strawmen, first. Then, to acknowledge how much of Bush’s support was simply “He’s fighting terrorism, and we’ll just deal with the rest of it” - oddly, that didn’t make your list, did it? Yet it was certainly the dominant theme of the campaign.
You should know fucking well that the best intelligence he has was that it was an Al Qaeda bomb factory. Remember, there was a time when Presidents tried to actually fight Osama.
You know fucking well how many years that shit had been going on by then, don’t you? Anything Clinton did at all would have been painted as a dogwag. See earlier comment about strawmen.
You do have a point buried under all that self-excusing bullshit, about a voter’s choice being the total of her views on all the issues, but it would seem to be pointless to discuss it with you.
They were questions, oh literate one, just answer them.
Although I doubt you will, as to be a Republican means accepting that you cannot advance the real reasons for policies you favour. Not if you wish people to accept them.
I’m curious. Exactly which of the environmental issues do you believe is an “alarmist campaign of doom”? And what reliable scientific evidence have you read that debunks them as such?
That’s a whole new 50 page thread, but there are other ways of dealing with people like Saddam. Like The Six Point Plan from the progressive Christians.
All agendas have their nutjobs, but like Maureen I’m also curious about who you’re referring to here. Do you think mainstream Democrat policies are too extreme?
So let’s pretend everything swirling around in the media currently is true:
Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq
Joe Wilson pointed out the main evidence to do so is false
Karl Rove outs Valerie Plame to get revenge on Wilson
Bush does nothing about it
If that’s all true, let’s pretend Bush is up for re-election again in November. Will you really still vote for him because his policies are more similar to yours?
If so, I suppose it’s no wonder your party is in the condition it’s in.
Support of the Kyoto Treaty. Continued belief that that nuclear power is too dangerous to support. Etc.
Well, who’s the opponent? Is it, as it was in 2004, someone who promises to raise my taxes, institute nationalized health care, doesn’t have a coherent plan to deal with the war on terror, and feels the best way to deal with Social Security is to plug his fingers in his ears and shout “Nyah, nyah, there’s no problem”?
I’m screwed either way, so I’ll go with the one who hurts my party more than he does my country- Bush.
Actually, Slacker, since I’ve answered the question, let me reverse it and pass it to you.
In 2008, the Republicans nominate Bob Elephant, currently Governor of Redstate. Bob has a clean record as governor, served honorably but without distinction in Vietnam, and fully supports outlawing Roe v. Wade, not only supporting but increasing the War in Iraq to possibly include Syria, is against gay marriage, and wishes to overturn the Endangered Species Act as ‘instrusive government interference which has not proved to help a single animal.’ Elephant’s campaign material, while having the standard amount of catchy sloganeering, is also accompanied by well-documented facts.
Opposite him is Senator Tom Donkey for the Democrats. Donkey has great charisma and a proven liberal record. His campaign manager is currently under investigation for accepting personal bribes to influence the Senator’s stances on matters, and several of his top staff had to resign recently over allegations (currently under criminal investigation) that they did no actual work, but kicked back a portion of their salary to the Senator. Donkey’s campaigning is vacuous, relying completely on demagougery and trying to whip up class warfare and avoiding direct facts when possible.
Who do you vote for?
Or how about C) correctly decry the Bush administration after their first term and have it replaced by an administration that you can have faith and trust in, who aren’t corrupt, and who also share your political ideologies, by nominating someone other than the incumbent to run on your party’s ticket? Or how about D) correctly decry the Bush administration and fight right here and right now for his impeachment, as well as that of his corrupt Vice-President, and anyone else in his administration that is connected with the corruption that’s permeated it, and go through the line of command until you find someone honorable?
I find it offensive in the extreme that you believe it’s actually correct to decry this administration, yet don’t even bother to actually do anything about it, entirely for selfish, self-serving motives. That’s what’s so infuriating – that you would saddle this nation with a corrupt President for your own personal gain. Disgusting.
You’ve made a very false assumption (and thinly veiled accusation) there. Why would I privately mutter about, or publicly decry, an event I don’t find either illegal or corrupt? In spite of the parallels you try to draw, I would hardly classify it as anything remotely like what the Bush administration has done. Namely, Clinton didn’t declare war on an entire, sovereign nation with knowingly false and fabricated information. While Clinton opponents tried to create controversy over whether the evidence he had, linking that factory to bin Laden, was strong enough to act on, I believe he did so in good faith, and even now that intelligence appears to have been true. Even your buddy George W. Bush agreed at the time;
As do other Bush administration officials, as recently as 2003;
And guess what, even as of today – this very day, those intelligence reports are still not in question by honest reporters:
Contrary to Clinton using what was, and still is, believed by officials in both administrations to be trusted and accurate intelligence in response to al Qaeda attacks, and going after locations he honestly believed to have ties with bin Laden, we know that that’s not the case with Bush with regard to his declaration of war against Iraq. George W. Bush invented false reasons for declaring war (war – a long and protracted war on an entire nation, not just a targeted bombing of a purported weapons manufacturing plant – war!), and then when his deceit came out, sang a different song that, amazingly (or not), all the drones started humming right along with.
I don’t hold Bill Clinton up as a paragon. I think what he did to his wife was despicable. However, people in all positions of power have, and always will, make mistakes. Some of them with devastating consequences. I don’t like wars or bombing other countries or factories or anything, no matter who’s doing it. And frankly, I’m stunned that purported chemical weapons manufacturing plants are ever bombing targets to begin with – wouldn’t that just spread the killer chemicals all the hell over the place and endanger even more lives?? But you won’t ever find me objecting to Bush Sr.'s Gulf War (utterly justified) or even this Bush’s war in Afghanistan (also justified). Iraq, on the other hand, is entirely different from all of the above, and you’re smart enough to know that. I think you were just trying to catch me in some kind of hypocracy. Too bad it didn’t work.
Interesting. Which part of the Kyoto Protocol do you feel is extremist? Aside from forcing corporations to be responsible for the toxic emissions their factories spew into the atmosphere? I’m sure that limits trade greatly. :rolleyes:
Am I to assume by your use of the word “etc.”, you mean every stance on environmental issues which does not agree with the current administration is “an alarming campaign of doom”? If that were the case, I hardly think the head of the EPA would be going out of his way to alter reports. After all, scientific evidence would prove you’re correct. Right?
Let’s take a little trip to West Virginia, shall we?
Now, call me extremist, but I really don’t care for the idea of my watershed being polluted with carcinogenic chemicals. That’s just me. I’m sure you, John, probably think a little cancer is good for us. Us damn fool environmentalist liberals must be overreacting. There are other ways to get to that coal, but it would cost more! Who cares if a few people die, so long as the profit margin holds!
A third party candidate. I wouldn’t vote for anyone with Bob’s platform, and I wouldn’t vote for a person with Senator Donkey’s dubious history.
Is it that hard to believe that I think the office is more important that politics? I wouldn’t have voted for Clinton - who incidentally I thought was a great president - in 1996 had I known the Lewinski affair was forthcoming. He brought shame to the office of the President of the United States, and had that been his first term, he would have lost my vote. Regardless of the damn politics. There are some things more important than politics. You may think that’s foolish, and that’s fine. But it’s important to me.
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll play this stupid game. Tom Donkey wouldn’t even get the Democratic nomination under those known circumstances. I have never known a Democratic candidate to be nominated with such obvious illegal connections, nor should one be. Gary Hart lost face with his party and dropped out of the Presidential race merely for being implicated in an extra-marital affair, and Howard Dean got shunned for screaming too loud. And you think we’d actually be stupid enough to put up your Tom Donkey dick? Please.
And for the record, in 1980 I voted for John Anderson, former Republican senator, running as an Independent. In 1992 I was poised to punch the hole for Ross Perot, in spite of not necessarily agreeing with all of his platforms, because I was extremely impressed with how he accomplished breaking his employees out of prison in Iran and figured we might need a non-politician who wasn’t afraid of going up against both sides of the aisle – until the Admiral Stockdale debacle at the debates.
And if by some extraordinarily bizarre set of circumstances, your Tom Donkey guy did get the Democractic nod in Bizzaro World, I’d once again have no problem voting for an Independent candidate, or even a Republican candidate, if it were someone I saw as having the integrity and ability to run the country and our military with a true sense of “uniting not dividing.” For instance, John McCain would definitely get my vote over Tom Donkey. You see, I would never dream of putting a person I honestly felt to be corrupt into a position as powerful as dog catcher, let alone President of the United States. Too bad you don’t have that kind of integrity.
