Amen. Insults against Republicans had no effect on me at all. I switched because it became apparent to me that the “insults” (actually facts) were true.
I switched before this, but who can support a party where every candidate supports torture - except for the one actually tortured?
In addition, I’m not a conservative any more because conservative ideas don’t work. That’s demonstrable.
Plus, who has insulted who more? Remember “The Democrat Party?” Remember Swift Boating? As a former Republican I feel perfectly justified in insulting both the policies and the type of person who can support the unconscionable because “we may support torture and a stupid war, but at least we’re not Democrats.”
I think Pochacco and Biggirl nailed this one. I myself want to see a stronger Democratic party, built by adhering more closely to Democratic principles and attracting voters who see a party ready to fight for those principles.
I have no interest in a party that grows because it attracts those voters who have not had their feelings hurt.
I’ll tell you what, Algher. You should feel free to make up a t-shirt that says “Hentor the Barbarian kept me from voting Democratic because he was mean to me.” I’ll accept the blame on behalf of the Democrats for losing you.
You’d think that, but I doubt that McCain is going to cavil at torture as long as he’s not quite in that White House door, yet. He knows that doesn’t play with his voter base, as has been demonstrated by their very reluctant embrace of him.
I can’t help but envision millions of ex-Republicans, wandering the streets in confusion, left dejected and sad because the Democratic party won’t turn into the party they want it to be, which is the Republican party of the 50’s or 60’s or 80’s, or some such. It’s just so unfair!
What’s so great about small government? Why is that the be-all and end-all?
Big government pulled us out of the Great Depression, gave us the interstate highway system and greatly diminished elderly poverty.
Conservatives need to think harder about cause and effect. Looking at total spending, the government is basically a large pension plan that happens to have an army. Those who advocate small government per se, but don’t have a specific and politically vetted plan for getting there, substitute sloganeering for tough-minded analysis.
Sure, I don’t like government fraud and waste. But I understand that some administrations do that sort of thing more than others and that too many media pundits either have weird ideo-tribal affiliations or let a phony even-handedness basically eliminate any pretense of candor.
That said, Republicans will vote for lower taxes on upper income groups, and some of that revenue shortfall will trickle down to the middle and lower groups. But since they don’t match their tax cuts with spending restraint, it’s basically an exercise in mortgaging the country’s future.
Remember that health care is ~16% of the economy IIRC. No, we’re going to have to increment the size of the federal government upwards, even as the health insurance industry shrinks. Done properly it will advance economic growth. But expect the fever swamp to go nuts – it always does.
But the modern conservative doesn’t actually like the Republican of the 1950s-1970s. Any Republican who demands balanced budgets in practice is labeled a Rhino - Republican in Name Only. John Anderson and Lowell Weicker were drummed out of the party for a reason.
No, what the modern conservative wants is the policies of Reagan’s rhetoric, without the consequences of Reagan’s policies. [1] [2]
[1] Believers in the free market believe that the Soviet Union broke apart due to the inferiority of its economic system. Modern conservatives ascribe the break-up to Reagan’s purchase of expensive weapon systems, and the devotion of 6% of the economy to peacetime military spending. Personally, I argue that Communism collapsed because of 1) the aging of the old guard and the replacement with reformers such as Gorbachev, followed by 2) the Armenian earthquake and Chernobyl, which persuaded them that the system was not reformable.
[2] Although actually, Reagan’s policies were more moderate than his rhetoric. He followed large tax cuts with huge tax increases – in the end the middle class faced higher taxes, while upper income groups got tax cuts. Reagan came close to having an arms control breakthrough - to the dismay of most of his advisers. Stockman noted that his budget policy consisted of small across the board cuts (in the face of recession) rather than program-by-program evaluation and slash.
As has been mentioned, so would Reagan. He raised taxes in California, he didn’t do anything against abortion, so he clearly wasn’t a real Reagan Republican.
Reagan also raised taxes for years after his initial US tax cut ultimately to the highest tax increase in peacetime history. I believe that record remains so today.
He also inflated the size of government spending to the largest it had ever been by the time he left office.
I just don’t understand this at all. Bush and Cheney didn’t elect themselves. Millions of people voted for them, and all of those voters got what they voted for. If you’re one of those millions who voted for Bush/Cheney (twice!), instead of trying to distance yourselves from them, instead of complaining about what they’ve done, look in the mirror.
