All you have to do is look at what happened to Rep. Max Clelland, a person of unassailable patriotism and undeniable personal courage, after he had the temerity to question the Patriot Act legislation.
Talk about a no-win situation.
Dinsdale, you start your post with the fallacy that pro-war is a conservative position, anti-war is a liberal position. Pat Buchanan demonstrates that this is an error.
As a life-long Democrat and liberal, I will vote against any candidate in the primaries who voted against war with Iraq. I believe that the opposition to the war by some liberals represents an abdication of what liberalism is supposed to stand for.
Sua
Uh - Sua - I don’t see anything in my OP mentioning conservatives or liberals.
So, you really believe that all partisan voting in Congress can be explained by a conservative/liberal dichotomy?
Fine, Dinsdale
“Dinsdale, you start your post with the fallacy that pro-war is the natural Republican position, and anti-war is the natural Democratic position.”
Your second fallacy is that the Democratic members of Congress that do not oppose war are “wimps,” as opposed to actually supporting the war. Evidence, please? 'Cause, as I have noted, Democrats do support the war, and said war is in keeping with Democratic foreign policy of the past 50+ years - note Korea, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Kosovo, etc.
Sua
And Republicans don’t like blow-jobs/adultery… And Dems really have a beef with Estrada. Etc. ad infinitum.
You apparently have a different view of recent national politics than I. I really wish I were wrong and you were right. We’ll see.
Parse this, Destruction Man:
a. If YOU yourself used the copy button like I did, then YOU would be a whole lot clearer, since your entry is written like a blatant attack on soccer moms
and
b. As for the threat, you made it. You clearly said “they’ll get what’s coming.” Not a very good thing to say to keep alive your delusional dreams of becoming president (see the thread “Bush is Frightening” ) Did you really think you’d be president just because of what I, a total stranger said sarcastically? We do not need a barbaric soccer mom hater like you as president.
So before you blast me for not using my “quote” function, try using your copy function. At least I’m making an attempt at clarity.
quote:
Originally posted by sixseven
Posted by Barbarian man:
One quick question: Aren’t soccer moms more typically conservative?
huh?
Sounds like an unresolved soccer mom fixation hidden there somewhere.
A slower observation: Aren’t conservatives just as likely to think that everyone else shares their view, and if they don’t, well they just better or they’ll get what is coming?
“just better or they’ll get what is coming?”… is that a threat, from a Barbarian, no less? Soccer moms, beware…
The world has room for all on the political spectrum.
Brilliant observations. Absolutely. Not only are you unable to see the source for my question about soccer moms, but you are also unable to parse my second statement to understand that a: it has nothing to do with soccer moms, and b: the threat in the statement is not from me.
Eventually you may even figure out how to click on the quote button.
For the last 25 years at least, we’ve been in a situation where almost all of the Democrats are liberals, and all of the Republicans are conservative. But before that, there were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, if you can believe such a thing. In politics, its Party first, ideals second.
The problem is, it’s been a long time since the Democratic Party really stood for anything. They are an old party, and for the last century or so, have gone in whatever direction seems will get them votes. Remember, in the 19th Century, the Democratic party was the party of the solid South, not exactly the most liberal of places.
But when Roosevelt swept in with his liberal reforms in the 30’s, people began to vote Democrat as long as Democrats were liberal. This lasted for several decades, into the 70’s at least. That’s why the guys with a liberal message, like Byrd and Kennedy, are all old.
Later, the liberals, comfortable in their dominance, began to factionalize, and liberal voters began to withhold their vote in protest if their Democrat did not spout exactly their flavor of left-leaning rhetoric. The Republicans, meanwhile, solidified under a conservative banner.
This worked in the 80’s, when Reagan won by landslides both times, and Big Bush didn’t do too badly for himself either.
Aha, the Dems said. People are voting to the right, now. So they started moving toward the conservative end of things, and, lo and behold, Clinton and a lot of “centrist” democrats got voted in, and more or less held on through the nineties. So they knew they were on to something.
Those on the left waiting for the Democrats to “wake up” and be the voice of liberalism once again have missed the boat. Didja notice that Gore agreed with Bush on most issues in their debates? Didja notice that almost all of the Democratic members of congress who voted for Bush’s war powers were re-elected? We on the left have only ourselves to blame. The Dems learned that the right votes, the left doesn’t, and liberals haven’t learned that denying anyone their vote isn’t protest, it’s acquiescence.
So we have a Republican Party on the far right, occasionally dipping their toes in the middle, a Democratic Party in the middle, leaning as far right as they can stand to get votes, and on the left, a few aging New Deal Democrats and a bunch of mini-parties that can’t back down from the moral certitude of their singular issues to form a united front.
If you lament the fall of liberalism in America, get your butt to a booth and VOTE next time. For whoever. Your mailman. Anybody. The worst thing that happens is no one gets a simple majority.
Me? I’m going to run for Elector next time.
I’m not getting what you are saying. To accept your position, we have to accept that impeachments over blowjobs and opposition to the war are analogous.
Sua