When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
I want a “New American Tea Party” political party based on serious federal fiscal responsibility (deep cuts in spending, taxes and regulations) with candidate challenges against EVERY congressman and senator who voted for ANY of the TARPS, Bailouts or Stimulus Bills.
b1jetmech
15 years ago
Does Peggy want back in the Reservation? Since she went wobbly on us I don’t think Conservatives will ever regain their full trust in her not only for her Cheer leading Obama’s phony moderation but falling for it to begin with.
When’s David Frum gonna want back in?
Timothy
15 years ago
Sorry Peggy & David,
Once a rat-rhino leaves the ship, you’re on your own.
@Trubador: Sorry, but the only valid choice is between keeping Obama and the Democrats in power or working to re-establish a GOP majority in 2010 and ousting Obama in 2012.
Besides, Every Republican in the House and all but three in the Senate voted against the Obama stimulus bailouts.
P.S. I prepared this graphic in response to Curt’s post next to this one:
Full size version here suitable for printing and putting in the back window of your car if you have the guts to do so.
P.P.S. As far as letting Peggy Noonan and the others who strayed back into the party that’s fine. But just as long as they understand they have to sit in the back and keep quiet. They had their say in 2008 and they WERE WRONG!
Scrapiron
15 years ago
I doubt we will have the chance to vote in 2010 or anytime after unless the Tea Parties turn into necktie parties or the big money men get tired of him screwing them. I’ll wager O’Dumbo has enough money men turned against him that there is no way he will survive until 2012. He’ll join Lincoln and JFK in the history books. Anyone who thinks they are safe from a paid assassin is a prime/easy target, they’re ego gets in the way.
I’m not gonna speak for Scrapiron, but I too believe that with 40000 more people made homeless every day, with 5-6 million already jobless and without hope of getting a new job (at least until the “stimulus” STARTS to take effect in a year or two), and with another 600-700,000 people losing their job every month (that’s 20-30 million family members hurting badly too btw), I just can’t see the statistics NOT leading to violence. If only .0000001 of the people are driven to grab a gun or a bomb or whatever, then it’s gonna happen soon. I don’t want it to, but I fear and expect it to.
I also don’t think Obama realizes or cares.
George Bush would be out in lines at job fairs or whatever by now. Obama…he’s on Leno. It’s disgusting, but oh how fast his attention will change when the percentages and the people in dire trouble cross lines.
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
@Scrapiron,
Ewwwwwww! President Joe Biden? My gag reflex is working overtime!
Jeff V
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
@Mike,
Maybe something a little more subtle. The moonbats are too easily offended and resort to violence at the slightest provocation. Besides, I just bought a 2008 Chevy Impala to replace my faithful but dying Pontiac Bonneville (yes, I’m a GM fan). I don’t want to invite some moonbat for target practice; the new “gal” doesn’t even have her first scratch or ding!
I also live in Joliet, IL, and there are still a lot of Obama worshipers around.
Jeff V
Tom N
15 years ago
WE MUST KEEP OUR EYES ON THE FUTURE. SARAH PALIN PLEASE RETURN TO THE LOWER 48.
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
Peggy is a waffler, even talking out of both sides of her mouth in the same paragraph, to wit:
“We can be thankful we had an election whose outcome was clear, not murky and a continuing trauma. It is good that 2008 was a seven-point win by someone, and not a 50-50 contest forced into resolution in the courts. Imagine what it would be like now, the general tone and feeling of the country, if at this moment we were arguing over hanging chads and bent ballots. I am thankful that more than half the country is, in at least one area, politics, happy, and that the 46% who voted the other way accepted the outcome as America always has, peacefully and with good-natured resentment.”
Which is it, Peggy? Have
Americans really accepted the outcome of presidential elections “peacefully and with good-natured resentment?” Or have we ever devolved into nasty “arguing over hanging chads and bent ballot?”
In trying to sound witty, Peggy went a little obtuse. Or are we to infer that the 46% of Amricans whose candidate didn’t win are the ones who have always accepted loss with style and grace? I don’t buy that argument, either. But congratulations to Peggy for finally taking off the rose colored glasses. Better late than never.
Jeff V
Lightbringer
15 years ago
I am not so worried about the American public taking off their rose colored glasses (to a reasonable extent). Nor do I feel the need to proclaim “I want Obama to fail!” publicly. The policies of our President and Congress will fail without my hexing them, and the public will not have much choice but to wake up and smell the coffee as these policies degrade our economy and our freedoms. There is a reason that American Socialism has only progressed as far as it has over the last 100 years. That reason is that every time they get more than an inch, they try and grab a mile or three. The American people want to be comfortable. A little pinch here, a belt notch tightened there, and they do not get too excited. Suddenly turn off their electricity and tell them they must subsist on bread and water (so to speak), and they will politically lynch you. Ask Jimmy Carter. Too many of us know in our guts that there is no reason on Earth that we cannot succeed at anything we set our minds to, and we know that when limits are placed upon us, it is those who place those limits that are the cause of failure.
What keeps me awake at night is not the Democrats, although this wave of socialist idiocy is going to hurt badly and for a long time. No, what worries me is the current batch of wishy washy, populist Republicans. Unless there is a major overhaul in their way of doing business we are going to continue down this same road, only at a slower pace that is less likely to evoke strong objections from the American people. Do any of the up and coming Conservative leaders have the intestinal fortitude to actually shrink our bloated government? Or will they “talk the talk”, and then continue on with “business as usual”?
@Lightbringer: I hope you have taken notice of the very strong steps Republican Leaders in both the House and Senate have taken not only in creating a unified opposition to Obama’s wrongheaded, risky policies but presenting a common sense alternative.
I heard talk after the election that GOP leaders felt pressure to accommodate Obama. Glad to see they saw the light on that one.
To me at least it seems our side has learned it’s lesson. And at some point, we’ll have to stop beating them up and supporting them.
William
15 years ago
We were promised Hope, but we got a Dope. Being educated and being intelligent are not synomous, Obama has proven the Peter Principle, he has risen to the level of his incompetence.
Lightbringer
15 years ago
@Mike’s America:
Your point about Congressional Republicans is well taken. I have seen very promising signs from them during the last few months. My intention was not so much to continue “beating them up” but to remind everyone that most of these same players did not sound so wonderful while they were passing the prescription drug plan, trying to pass amnesty, and a hundred other boondoggles. I am willing to give them a chance, but espousing conservatism while in the minority opposition, and actually putting such principles into action (if) when they regain a majority are two very different things. We The People are going to have to do our part, and that means keeping a much closer eye on them and keeping them on a much shorter leash.
@Lightbringer: GOP leaders from the last eight years, Bush included, thought that if we went along half way with Democrats they would come along half way with us. They didn’t. We thought that if we adopted some of the big government ideas from the Dems that the public would admire us for being flexible. The public didn’t.
We nominated a presidential candidate who was the model for bipartisan cooperation because we were told that’s what the voters wanted. They voted for the most partisan, liberal Democrat instead.
If our leaders didn’t learn the lesson the hard way in 2006 and 2008 then we deserve to lose.
But as they do seem to be demonstrating they have taken these painful lessons to heart I am hopeful.
And yes, I do agree we need to keep them on a shorter leash. And that’s especially true for the talking heads who were so eager to jump ship and sail with the hopey-changey crew.
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
Lightbringer,
I agree with what you said about the Republicans, it’s extremely hard to shrink government (most institutions, once firmly established, devote considerable energy to self-preservation), but that’s a lousy reason not to try. I would start by performing a detailed analysis of why and where taxpayer money goes “missing.” This is especially problematic in the areas that make up the biggest chunks of the budget: defense, education, and health care. Trillions of dollars go missing EVERY YEAR! If we recovered even half of that, we’d easily balance our budget AND pay off the national debt in just a few years!
But to do this, we need public support for a fiscally conservative leader, and this requires the rose-colored glasses wearers to shed those glasses temporarily. It doesn’t have to take much sacrifice to do things the right way, but it does take courage and conviction. Reducing waste can be accomplished by eliminating excessive administration, and by reclaiming “lost” or “missing” tax money.
Sustaining a balanced budget will require rethinking of global and “free” trade policies; I doubt that this is possible until we re-establish manufacturing inside our borders again. This will take effort, but it is possible, and is certainly worth the effort.
So that brings us to this: Assuming that we need a financially conservative, responsible presidential candidate.
Who will be this prson? Can we have such a candidate ready to (really) hit the ground running in 2012?
Jeff V
Greg
15 years ago
Wisdom comes with experience. Obama had minimal experience in leadership positions, let alone successful experience. It’s now showing. Welcome to reality Peggy. DemocRATS who voted for this feckless individual will probably not ever admit or agree that the person they voted into the White House is inept. The only reality they can perceive is that which they are told. Kind of like that delusion that LIBERATING IRAQ FROM TYRANNY was a mistake. After all, look at the cost in lives and money spent over there. Sacrificing on behalf of your fellow man in order to secure his freedom from tyranny is now viewed as imperialistic warmongering. Is it any wonder that with this value system now controlling our government, the real reality may have to teach us some hard fought lessons in order to get us to wise up? When the multitude of disasters coming our way happen, I’ll be ready. Will you?
I know that the vast majority of congressmen and senators that have voted for the TARPS, Bailouts and Stimulus’ (Stimuli???) have been Democrats, although a handful have also been Republicans. The problem is that for a large majority of those seats, people who normally and regularly vote Democrat won’t vote for a Republican just because of the (R) at the end of the name.
By having fiscal conservatives competing in those specific races (bashing both parties because, let’s face it, except for the brief ’95-’01 period of R’s running congress it’s obvious that BOTH parties share the blame of fiscal irresponsibility), it’ll get enough disgusted voters to swing for “something new” even though it’ll just be standard fiscal conservatism but without the R name brand attached to it.
It will cause one of two things to happen: (a) actually get a committed NAT Party member in office, or (b) syphon off enough votes away from the incumbent D to get the challenging R elected. Because, in those hard-core, perpetually-D districts, you will NEVER get them to vote R, but you MAY get them to vote NAT.
We keep asking if our GOP leaders have learned their lesson.
Well, what about the third party types? When are they going to learn their lesson?
I remember 1992 and the siren song of that dwarf Ross Perot. Someone remind me how that one worked out.
Then there was the encore in 1996.
I remember the John Anderson Chimera of 1980. What a joke that was.
The best way to advance conservative ideals is through the Republican Party. If you want to advance the cause then start by getting involved in your local and state GOP and demand they adhere to conservative principles.
Otherwise, we split what strength we have and are more easily defeated.
End of story and anyone who suggests otherwise isn’t playing with a full deck.
Mike’s right. People within a democratic party need to shut up and toe the party line.
Because when you are saddled with a two party non-proportional system then you are stuck with a poor choice. You end up backing someone like McCain who don’t even like or agree with. How dare someone like Perot even attempt to bypass the strangehold of 2 party politics? Either you are all Red and hate all things Democrat or you’re all Blue and hate all things Republican.
Of course I was making a jab. But it’s still a valid point. And I’m agreeing with you. Splits aren’t going to work – each time you will end up damaging yourselves and letting someone like Clinton in. Politics is debate and is trouble. Anyway my lunch is over – cya.
How are you going to get large, dense (in both senses of the word) pockets of hard-core registered Democrat voters to vote for Republicans? I grew up in Philly. Lived their for 31 years. The city has been a 1-party town for DECADES. They will NEVER vote for a Republican. But they MAY vote for someone who’s NOT a Democrat if they are appealing to them when their current Democrat politicians are pissing them off.
You may get the very rare, brief, local occurrence (e.g., Rudy in NYC, or Riordan in LA), but not in federal offices (why did the likes of Barney Frank, Rangel, etc. get re-elected despite all the scandals, etc?), and certainly not in large or long-lasting numbers. Why does Liebermann get re-elected AS A REGISTERED INDEPENDENT over BOTH the R & D candidates for senate in a heavily-D state?
If you are a registered Republican and are a strong conservative (such as myself), would you EVER vote for a Democrat? NO! Even though your own rep or senator is a friggin’ joke who infuriates you. Because you know what the “D” stands for as a party, and you don’t want to give that side of the aisle any additional power. Better a half-empty glass rather than a completely empty glass, you say to yourself. The letter “D” to a hard-core registered “R” has a taint to it. And vice versa. A hard-core registered “D” will NEVER pull the lever for an “R” candidate no matter how perfectly that “R” candidate matches that “D” voter’s politics. There’s no getting around that.
But if you are given a choice (for your own, small representative district) among (a) the current officeholder who is in the same party as you but who is royally pissing you off, (b) another candidate who’s registered with the other party that you consider a 4-letter word, and (c) one more candidate that articulates exactly what your thoughts and concerns are for the fiscal/economic situation at hand, but is not a member of “that other evil party”… you MAY be inclined to check the box for that third option.
Given that many, many more Democrat politicians in solid-D districts would be the targets, it’s a win-win situation for Conservatives. You get to maintain (for the most part) the existing Republicans in congress (at least the ones who are doing their jobs), and you open up an avenue for fiscal conservatives to pick up those otherwise untouchable seats.
Instead of treating the “third party” issue as a way of making the Republicans the Whig Party 2.0 (like too many conservatives have thought of doing since Ross Perot in ’92), we’d instead be making the Democrat Party the Whig Party 2.0 — diminishing it to the smallest pocket of far-left socialists that they really are, and making them a perpetual small minority, politically. And the Republicans with the “third” party members would be better able to develop coalitions on key legislation (fiscal issues, foreign policy, etc.).
@Trubador: I don’t have an easy answer to the problem you pose of Dems who will never vote for anyone with an (R) after their name. I don’t see these folks voting for Libertarians either.
What I do know, and it’s been proven so many times, is that a third party only splits what strength you have.
The beneficiaries of that have always been Democrats.
Do you think the country was better off because a bunch of folks stood on principle and voted for Perot?
Lightbringer
15 years ago
@Gaffa
Either you are all Red and hate all things Democrat or you’re all Blue and hate all things Republican.
In your own snarky way, you have a point. A sizable majority of Americans would fall into the “moderate” category. Here is one thing that always gets overlooked by those who yearn for a moderate third party to solve the age old struggle between the bluest of blue and the reddest of red. (Also by those who preach that we must aim for the middle to win elections) Moderates are not a homogeneous group. Not that Conservatives and Liberals are in perfect unison, both groups have all sorts of flavors and brands. Moderates, though, are more confused and varied by an order of magnitude. Moderates are made up of people who pick and choose and are swayed by arguments from both sides of the aisle. For the sake of conversation, let us say that both Liberals and Conservatives have ten basic issues that make up their core beliefs. Moderates might have any of these twenty beliefs and you can add in another twenty in case they do not give a damn about any of them. Trying to base a new political party on what amounts to voter chaos theory either gets you support levels similar to current third parties, or a monstrosity that tears itself apart trying to go in five different directions at once.
You do not succeed by weaving back and forth down the middle of the road. You succeed by picking a lane, right or left, steering straight and true down that lane, and keeping your course close enough to the middle so that those who only share a few of your beliefs feel comfortable with you. Obama and his gang have their lane, but those in the middle are finding out that the current Democrat course is halfway off the shoulder and into the dirt and bushes.
The problem with Perot was that he was just one guy running for the top office only. Lincoln did not win via the Perot route, but via disaffected voters and politicians creating a new party four-to-six years before he eventually ran and won the presidency, with new party members already in Congress.
What would need to be done is to have viable candidates running for house and senate NOW. I’m sure there are a lot of angry, middle-class, fiscal conservatives out their. Just look at what’s been happening lately with all these Tea Parties across the country (15,000 people protesting in Fullerton, CA, of all places). Bigger and unified rallies are being scheduled to occur across the country on April 15 and July 4.
Well I like being snarky. Seems to fit right at home in these political forums;)
Anyway regarding the points you raise.
Firstly as you say Conservatives and Liberals have their own wings. In the UK – the Tories who were closer to the left of this right wing party were called Wets dispargingly by Thatcher who was, of course, more on the right. Her predecessor, Heath was considered a Wet. In Labour – they too had splits – during the last two decades between New Labour – led by Tony Blair -who moved the party more to the centre as opposed to Old Labour who were proud to be socialists like Tony Benn.
As for middle parties like the Liberals – who often get fairly and unfairly accused of being all things to all people – they joined together in the early 80s with a Labour splinter group the SDP. Now I believe the Liberals were more liberalism in the old fashioned term – economic liberalism – at least that’s where their history lay. But they hadn’t seen power since Lloyd George back in 1922. Whereas the SDP – were more social democrats similar I guess to US Democratics – preferring government intervention etc.
So it’s getting almost towards 100 years where the British really have only two choices like the States. If you vote Liberal, Green, BNP etc then it’s unlikely your vote will count unless it’s a hung parliament. So people are more inclined to vote to parties more to the right (but not too far right like the BNP) or to the left (but again not so left as in the Greens) even if it’s not the party closest to their views. I think this gives people a poor choice as to whether they vote Tory/Republican or Democrat/Labour. Moderates get frustrated as they are in the middle where neither main party resides – and those on the hard right and left feel frustrated as they often feel they are being taken for granted.
As for moderates having a mix of 20 beliefs which varies between moderates. How refreshing is that? Instead we have 2 party politics because the US and UK unlike a lot of other democratic countries can’t handle anymore because it confuses us. We are likely to vote the same as parents, start reading papers that reflects our views and when we come to vote we automatically know who to vote for because we have our preferred tribe. We don’t need to know the details and particular views of the candidate because we believe they will generally adhere to the party line. Imagine if there was an election between 3 indepedents? Who would you vote for? You might actually have to find out what they believe in.
Of course this makes it harder to form parties but that isn’t a bad thing. I think parties change their views but sometimes their baggage gets in the way. And leaders make a massive difference. If I had a range of views from your hypothetical list – I know I won’t find someone who will match all 20 in a politician but I would rather find out who matched best rather than have two party-machines – tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee turn out robotic politicians who have to comply with the party-line. For example – if I was a conservative fiscally but socially liberal – who do I vote for? That’s why countries like US and UK should have referendums on their election systems similar to what New Zealand did. Of politicians from both ‘sides’ won’t do this – they like it the way it is – as it suits them better. Meanwhile we are stuck often defending our side and hating the other.
Lightbringer
15 years ago
Gaffa,
“Being all things to all people”
A very nice way to sum up moderate politics. The problem being that by trying to please everyone, nothing gets done.
I agree that people need to rediscover the importance of actually learning details about the candidates they vote for. I do not, however, think there is any shortage of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” Republicans. Finding a Democrat that fits that bill may be a bit harder to do, although I am sure a few exist. As you said, research the candidates.
Actually, your example of both parties turning out robotic clones who do nothing but tow the party line is not very relevant in the U.S. What we get instead is Republicans who spout Conservative values like a mantra (the party line), and then once elected act like moderate Democrats. On the other hand, we get Democrats who spout Blue Dog rhetoric to the point that voters think they are getting a moderate Republican in disguise. When these moderate sounding Democrats get elected, they vote right along with the Obamunists 90% of the time. Do you notice a trend? Everyone tries to sound as Conservative as possible to get elected, then once in office they all behave further to the left. The American people (for the most part) did not back away from the Republicans because they were too conservative. They stopped supporting a party that was not matching conservative words with conservative actions.
As for a two party system restricting viewpoints into two narrow bandwidths, I would suggest that you take a closer look at some of the nutjobs and kooks that make up sizable portions of both parties here in the U.S.. 😛
Interesting – as that brings me to another point. How can we as voters have it some way that politicians keep closer to what they promise in there manifestos? It is frustrating when you vote for someone and then once in power they change tack. I understand that events happen and there practically needs to be some flexibility but it also feels we are often blantantly lied to. I would like to see aspects of manifestos/promises somehow being legally enforceable documents.
For example – Tony Blair in his 1997 manifesto promised there would be a referendum on Proportional Representation. This was after 18 years of his political party being in the wilderness. Of course he wins a landslide and he gets a go on running the country – so putting the electional process to a referendum is no longer in his personal interest. But there’s no practical reason why for the rest of us – that promise could not have been put in place. After 12 years now of Labour that promise has been buried along with quite a few others.
Lightbringer
15 years ago
@Gaffa
The only way to make manifestos (we call them campaign promises) legally binding is to boot them out of office (in the next election) for not living up to them. Sadly, all too many citizens forget about such promises shortly after the election, mainly because they only (barely) pay any attention to politics during an election. When the next election cycle comes around, unless the unfulfilled promise is a doozy (“Read my lips…No New Taxes!”), the average voter sees and hears only the new barrage of sweet talk and lies. What was said and promised 2-4-6 years ago is completely forgotten.
I am not sure how to motivate your average Joe to pay attention, but this phenomenon is a root cause of politicians lying through their teeth. On one hand they know that promising the moon gets more voter attention and support, on the other hand they also know they are unlikely to be held accountable for spouting bulls&%t. Perhaps someone whose job it is to report information on these jokers impartially. Such a group could print information about what politicians have promised, and compare it to what they actually accomplished. I would almost suggest that such publications be called newspapers, but we already know that they are in the business of printing propaganda and slanted versions of events to protect their heroes and friends. LOL
I want a “New American Tea Party” political party based on serious federal fiscal responsibility (deep cuts in spending, taxes and regulations) with candidate challenges against EVERY congressman and senator who voted for ANY of the TARPS, Bailouts or Stimulus Bills.
Does Peggy want back in the Reservation? Since she went wobbly on us I don’t think Conservatives will ever regain their full trust in her not only for her Cheer leading Obama’s phony moderation but falling for it to begin with.
When’s David Frum gonna want back in?
Sorry Peggy & David,
Once a rat-rhino leaves the ship, you’re on your own.
Feel the cold breeze ya bozos!!!!
@Trubador: Sorry, but the only valid choice is between keeping Obama and the Democrats in power or working to re-establish a GOP majority in 2010 and ousting Obama in 2012.
Besides, Every Republican in the House and all but three in the Senate voted against the Obama stimulus bailouts.
P.S. I prepared this graphic in response to Curt’s post next to this one:
Full size version here suitable for printing and putting in the back window of your car if you have the guts to do so.
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j191/mikesamerica/mikesamerica2/Fobama.jpg
P.P.S. As far as letting Peggy Noonan and the others who strayed back into the party that’s fine. But just as long as they understand they have to sit in the back and keep quiet. They had their say in 2008 and they WERE WRONG!
I doubt we will have the chance to vote in 2010 or anytime after unless the Tea Parties turn into necktie parties or the big money men get tired of him screwing them. I’ll wager O’Dumbo has enough money men turned against him that there is no way he will survive until 2012. He’ll join Lincoln and JFK in the history books. Anyone who thinks they are safe from a paid assassin is a prime/easy target, they’re ego gets in the way.
@Scrapiron: I certainly hope that final solution is NOT the case.
Can you imagine what would happen in this country if that happened? And of course the “news” media would raise their messiah to even higher heights.
I’d much rather he stay right where he is for the next 46 months and be tossed out at the end of that time in the same way Carter was.
You’re on a particularly morbid track today, Scrapiron.
@Scrapiron
If that what you would like to happen?
I’m not gonna speak for Scrapiron, but I too believe that with 40000 more people made homeless every day, with 5-6 million already jobless and without hope of getting a new job (at least until the “stimulus” STARTS to take effect in a year or two), and with another 600-700,000 people losing their job every month (that’s 20-30 million family members hurting badly too btw), I just can’t see the statistics NOT leading to violence. If only .0000001 of the people are driven to grab a gun or a bomb or whatever, then it’s gonna happen soon. I don’t want it to, but I fear and expect it to.
I also don’t think Obama realizes or cares.
George Bush would be out in lines at job fairs or whatever by now. Obama…he’s on Leno. It’s disgusting, but oh how fast his attention will change when the percentages and the people in dire trouble cross lines.
@Scrapiron,
Ewwwwwww! President Joe Biden? My gag reflex is working overtime!
Jeff V
@Mike,
Maybe something a little more subtle. The moonbats are too easily offended and resort to violence at the slightest provocation. Besides, I just bought a 2008 Chevy Impala to replace my faithful but dying Pontiac Bonneville (yes, I’m a GM fan). I don’t want to invite some moonbat for target practice; the new “gal” doesn’t even have her first scratch or ding!
I also live in Joliet, IL, and there are still a lot of Obama worshipers around.
Jeff V
WE MUST KEEP OUR EYES ON THE FUTURE. SARAH PALIN PLEASE RETURN TO THE LOWER 48.
Peggy is a waffler, even talking out of both sides of her mouth in the same paragraph, to wit:
“We can be thankful we had an election whose outcome was clear, not murky and a continuing trauma. It is good that 2008 was a seven-point win by someone, and not a 50-50 contest forced into resolution in the courts. Imagine what it would be like now, the general tone and feeling of the country, if at this moment we were arguing over hanging chads and bent ballots. I am thankful that more than half the country is, in at least one area, politics, happy, and that the 46% who voted the other way accepted the outcome as America always has, peacefully and with good-natured resentment.”
Which is it, Peggy? Have
Americans really accepted the outcome of presidential elections “peacefully and with good-natured resentment?” Or have we ever devolved into nasty “arguing over hanging chads and bent ballot?”
In trying to sound witty, Peggy went a little obtuse. Or are we to infer that the 46% of Amricans whose candidate didn’t win are the ones who have always accepted loss with style and grace? I don’t buy that argument, either. But congratulations to Peggy for finally taking off the rose colored glasses. Better late than never.
Jeff V
I am not so worried about the American public taking off their rose colored glasses (to a reasonable extent). Nor do I feel the need to proclaim “I want Obama to fail!” publicly. The policies of our President and Congress will fail without my hexing them, and the public will not have much choice but to wake up and smell the coffee as these policies degrade our economy and our freedoms. There is a reason that American Socialism has only progressed as far as it has over the last 100 years. That reason is that every time they get more than an inch, they try and grab a mile or three. The American people want to be comfortable. A little pinch here, a belt notch tightened there, and they do not get too excited. Suddenly turn off their electricity and tell them they must subsist on bread and water (so to speak), and they will politically lynch you. Ask Jimmy Carter. Too many of us know in our guts that there is no reason on Earth that we cannot succeed at anything we set our minds to, and we know that when limits are placed upon us, it is those who place those limits that are the cause of failure.
What keeps me awake at night is not the Democrats, although this wave of socialist idiocy is going to hurt badly and for a long time. No, what worries me is the current batch of wishy washy, populist Republicans. Unless there is a major overhaul in their way of doing business we are going to continue down this same road, only at a slower pace that is less likely to evoke strong objections from the American people. Do any of the up and coming Conservative leaders have the intestinal fortitude to actually shrink our bloated government? Or will they “talk the talk”, and then continue on with “business as usual”?
@Lightbringer: I hope you have taken notice of the very strong steps Republican Leaders in both the House and Senate have taken not only in creating a unified opposition to Obama’s wrongheaded, risky policies but presenting a common sense alternative.
I heard talk after the election that GOP leaders felt pressure to accommodate Obama. Glad to see they saw the light on that one.
To me at least it seems our side has learned it’s lesson. And at some point, we’ll have to stop beating them up and supporting them.
We were promised Hope, but we got a Dope. Being educated and being intelligent are not synomous, Obama has proven the Peter Principle, he has risen to the level of his incompetence.
@Mike’s America:
Your point about Congressional Republicans is well taken. I have seen very promising signs from them during the last few months. My intention was not so much to continue “beating them up” but to remind everyone that most of these same players did not sound so wonderful while they were passing the prescription drug plan, trying to pass amnesty, and a hundred other boondoggles. I am willing to give them a chance, but espousing conservatism while in the minority opposition, and actually putting such principles into action (if) when they regain a majority are two very different things. We The People are going to have to do our part, and that means keeping a much closer eye on them and keeping them on a much shorter leash.
@Lightbringer: GOP leaders from the last eight years, Bush included, thought that if we went along half way with Democrats they would come along half way with us. They didn’t. We thought that if we adopted some of the big government ideas from the Dems that the public would admire us for being flexible. The public didn’t.
We nominated a presidential candidate who was the model for bipartisan cooperation because we were told that’s what the voters wanted. They voted for the most partisan, liberal Democrat instead.
If our leaders didn’t learn the lesson the hard way in 2006 and 2008 then we deserve to lose.
But as they do seem to be demonstrating they have taken these painful lessons to heart I am hopeful.
And yes, I do agree we need to keep them on a shorter leash. And that’s especially true for the talking heads who were so eager to jump ship and sail with the hopey-changey crew.
Lightbringer,
I agree with what you said about the Republicans, it’s extremely hard to shrink government (most institutions, once firmly established, devote considerable energy to self-preservation), but that’s a lousy reason not to try. I would start by performing a detailed analysis of why and where taxpayer money goes “missing.” This is especially problematic in the areas that make up the biggest chunks of the budget: defense, education, and health care. Trillions of dollars go missing EVERY YEAR! If we recovered even half of that, we’d easily balance our budget AND pay off the national debt in just a few years!
But to do this, we need public support for a fiscally conservative leader, and this requires the rose-colored glasses wearers to shed those glasses temporarily. It doesn’t have to take much sacrifice to do things the right way, but it does take courage and conviction. Reducing waste can be accomplished by eliminating excessive administration, and by reclaiming “lost” or “missing” tax money.
Sustaining a balanced budget will require rethinking of global and “free” trade policies; I doubt that this is possible until we re-establish manufacturing inside our borders again. This will take effort, but it is possible, and is certainly worth the effort.
So that brings us to this: Assuming that we need a financially conservative, responsible presidential candidate.
Who will be this prson? Can we have such a candidate ready to (really) hit the ground running in 2012?
Jeff V
Wisdom comes with experience. Obama had minimal experience in leadership positions, let alone successful experience. It’s now showing. Welcome to reality Peggy. DemocRATS who voted for this feckless individual will probably not ever admit or agree that the person they voted into the White House is inept. The only reality they can perceive is that which they are told. Kind of like that delusion that LIBERATING IRAQ FROM TYRANNY was a mistake. After all, look at the cost in lives and money spent over there. Sacrificing on behalf of your fellow man in order to secure his freedom from tyranny is now viewed as imperialistic warmongering. Is it any wonder that with this value system now controlling our government, the real reality may have to teach us some hard fought lessons in order to get us to wise up? When the multitude of disasters coming our way happen, I’ll be ready. Will you?
To “Mike’s America” (re: comment#4)
I know that the vast majority of congressmen and senators that have voted for the TARPS, Bailouts and Stimulus’ (Stimuli???) have been Democrats, although a handful have also been Republicans. The problem is that for a large majority of those seats, people who normally and regularly vote Democrat won’t vote for a Republican just because of the (R) at the end of the name.
By having fiscal conservatives competing in those specific races (bashing both parties because, let’s face it, except for the brief ’95-’01 period of R’s running congress it’s obvious that BOTH parties share the blame of fiscal irresponsibility), it’ll get enough disgusted voters to swing for “something new” even though it’ll just be standard fiscal conservatism but without the R name brand attached to it.
It will cause one of two things to happen: (a) actually get a committed NAT Party member in office, or (b) syphon off enough votes away from the incumbent D to get the challenging R elected. Because, in those hard-core, perpetually-D districts, you will NEVER get them to vote R, but you MAY get them to vote NAT.
@Trubador: I don’t even know what a “NAT” is. If I haven’t heard of it, I doubt anyone else has either.
Third party movements are the best assurance Democrats have of remaining in office.
Does Bill Clinton ring a bell?
@Mike’s America:
I think Trubador is referring to New American Tea which hasn’t actually been formed yet.
@Aye Chihuahua: My point still stands.
We keep asking if our GOP leaders have learned their lesson.
Well, what about the third party types? When are they going to learn their lesson?
I remember 1992 and the siren song of that dwarf Ross Perot. Someone remind me how that one worked out.
Then there was the encore in 1996.
I remember the John Anderson Chimera of 1980. What a joke that was.
The best way to advance conservative ideals is through the Republican Party. If you want to advance the cause then start by getting involved in your local and state GOP and demand they adhere to conservative principles.
Otherwise, we split what strength we have and are more easily defeated.
End of story and anyone who suggests otherwise isn’t playing with a full deck.
Mike’s right. People within a democratic party need to shut up and toe the party line.
Because when you are saddled with a two party non-proportional system then you are stuck with a poor choice. You end up backing someone like McCain who don’t even like or agree with. How dare someone like Perot even attempt to bypass the strangehold of 2 party politics? Either you are all Red and hate all things Democrat or you’re all Blue and hate all things Republican.
@GaffaUK: Again you miss the point and are merely trying to stir up trouble. The very definition of a time waster.
Do you need a time out to go and collect your thoughts so you might come back here and offer something constructive?
@Mike
Of course I was making a jab. But it’s still a valid point. And I’m agreeing with you. Splits aren’t going to work – each time you will end up damaging yourselves and letting someone like Clinton in. Politics is debate and is trouble. Anyway my lunch is over – cya.
How are you going to get large, dense (in both senses of the word) pockets of hard-core registered Democrat voters to vote for Republicans? I grew up in Philly. Lived their for 31 years. The city has been a 1-party town for DECADES. They will NEVER vote for a Republican. But they MAY vote for someone who’s NOT a Democrat if they are appealing to them when their current Democrat politicians are pissing them off.
You may get the very rare, brief, local occurrence (e.g., Rudy in NYC, or Riordan in LA), but not in federal offices (why did the likes of Barney Frank, Rangel, etc. get re-elected despite all the scandals, etc?), and certainly not in large or long-lasting numbers. Why does Liebermann get re-elected AS A REGISTERED INDEPENDENT over BOTH the R & D candidates for senate in a heavily-D state?
If you are a registered Republican and are a strong conservative (such as myself), would you EVER vote for a Democrat? NO! Even though your own rep or senator is a friggin’ joke who infuriates you. Because you know what the “D” stands for as a party, and you don’t want to give that side of the aisle any additional power. Better a half-empty glass rather than a completely empty glass, you say to yourself. The letter “D” to a hard-core registered “R” has a taint to it. And vice versa. A hard-core registered “D” will NEVER pull the lever for an “R” candidate no matter how perfectly that “R” candidate matches that “D” voter’s politics. There’s no getting around that.
But if you are given a choice (for your own, small representative district) among (a) the current officeholder who is in the same party as you but who is royally pissing you off, (b) another candidate who’s registered with the other party that you consider a 4-letter word, and (c) one more candidate that articulates exactly what your thoughts and concerns are for the fiscal/economic situation at hand, but is not a member of “that other evil party”… you MAY be inclined to check the box for that third option.
Given that many, many more Democrat politicians in solid-D districts would be the targets, it’s a win-win situation for Conservatives. You get to maintain (for the most part) the existing Republicans in congress (at least the ones who are doing their jobs), and you open up an avenue for fiscal conservatives to pick up those otherwise untouchable seats.
Instead of treating the “third party” issue as a way of making the Republicans the Whig Party 2.0 (like too many conservatives have thought of doing since Ross Perot in ’92), we’d instead be making the Democrat Party the Whig Party 2.0 — diminishing it to the smallest pocket of far-left socialists that they really are, and making them a perpetual small minority, politically. And the Republicans with the “third” party members would be better able to develop coalitions on key legislation (fiscal issues, foreign policy, etc.).
@Trubador: I don’t have an easy answer to the problem you pose of Dems who will never vote for anyone with an (R) after their name. I don’t see these folks voting for Libertarians either.
What I do know, and it’s been proven so many times, is that a third party only splits what strength you have.
The beneficiaries of that have always been Democrats.
Do you think the country was better off because a bunch of folks stood on principle and voted for Perot?
@Gaffa
In your own snarky way, you have a point. A sizable majority of Americans would fall into the “moderate” category. Here is one thing that always gets overlooked by those who yearn for a moderate third party to solve the age old struggle between the bluest of blue and the reddest of red. (Also by those who preach that we must aim for the middle to win elections) Moderates are not a homogeneous group. Not that Conservatives and Liberals are in perfect unison, both groups have all sorts of flavors and brands. Moderates, though, are more confused and varied by an order of magnitude. Moderates are made up of people who pick and choose and are swayed by arguments from both sides of the aisle. For the sake of conversation, let us say that both Liberals and Conservatives have ten basic issues that make up their core beliefs. Moderates might have any of these twenty beliefs and you can add in another twenty in case they do not give a damn about any of them. Trying to base a new political party on what amounts to voter chaos theory either gets you support levels similar to current third parties, or a monstrosity that tears itself apart trying to go in five different directions at once.
You do not succeed by weaving back and forth down the middle of the road. You succeed by picking a lane, right or left, steering straight and true down that lane, and keeping your course close enough to the middle so that those who only share a few of your beliefs feel comfortable with you. Obama and his gang have their lane, but those in the middle are finding out that the current Democrat course is halfway off the shoulder and into the dirt and bushes.
The problem with Perot was that he was just one guy running for the top office only. Lincoln did not win via the Perot route, but via disaffected voters and politicians creating a new party four-to-six years before he eventually ran and won the presidency, with new party members already in Congress.
What would need to be done is to have viable candidates running for house and senate NOW. I’m sure there are a lot of angry, middle-class, fiscal conservatives out their. Just look at what’s been happening lately with all these Tea Parties across the country (15,000 people protesting in Fullerton, CA, of all places). Bigger and unified rallies are being scheduled to occur across the country on April 15 and July 4.
@Trubador: Tea Parties are not a viable third party.
Channel that energy into worthy goals like cementing conservative dominance in the GOP.
There has not been a succesful third party movement in the modern era of mass communications.
The chance of one succeeding now is infinitesimal.
All such an effort would do is ensure the re-election of Barack Obama.
@Lightbringer
Well I like being snarky. Seems to fit right at home in these political forums;)
Anyway regarding the points you raise.
Firstly as you say Conservatives and Liberals have their own wings. In the UK – the Tories who were closer to the left of this right wing party were called Wets dispargingly by Thatcher who was, of course, more on the right. Her predecessor, Heath was considered a Wet. In Labour – they too had splits – during the last two decades between New Labour – led by Tony Blair -who moved the party more to the centre as opposed to Old Labour who were proud to be socialists like Tony Benn.
As for middle parties like the Liberals – who often get fairly and unfairly accused of being all things to all people – they joined together in the early 80s with a Labour splinter group the SDP. Now I believe the Liberals were more liberalism in the old fashioned term – economic liberalism – at least that’s where their history lay. But they hadn’t seen power since Lloyd George back in 1922. Whereas the SDP – were more social democrats similar I guess to US Democratics – preferring government intervention etc.
So it’s getting almost towards 100 years where the British really have only two choices like the States. If you vote Liberal, Green, BNP etc then it’s unlikely your vote will count unless it’s a hung parliament. So people are more inclined to vote to parties more to the right (but not too far right like the BNP) or to the left (but again not so left as in the Greens) even if it’s not the party closest to their views. I think this gives people a poor choice as to whether they vote Tory/Republican or Democrat/Labour. Moderates get frustrated as they are in the middle where neither main party resides – and those on the hard right and left feel frustrated as they often feel they are being taken for granted.
As for moderates having a mix of 20 beliefs which varies between moderates. How refreshing is that? Instead we have 2 party politics because the US and UK unlike a lot of other democratic countries can’t handle anymore because it confuses us. We are likely to vote the same as parents, start reading papers that reflects our views and when we come to vote we automatically know who to vote for because we have our preferred tribe. We don’t need to know the details and particular views of the candidate because we believe they will generally adhere to the party line. Imagine if there was an election between 3 indepedents? Who would you vote for? You might actually have to find out what they believe in.
Of course this makes it harder to form parties but that isn’t a bad thing. I think parties change their views but sometimes their baggage gets in the way. And leaders make a massive difference. If I had a range of views from your hypothetical list – I know I won’t find someone who will match all 20 in a politician but I would rather find out who matched best rather than have two party-machines – tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee turn out robotic politicians who have to comply with the party-line. For example – if I was a conservative fiscally but socially liberal – who do I vote for? That’s why countries like US and UK should have referendums on their election systems similar to what New Zealand did. Of politicians from both ‘sides’ won’t do this – they like it the way it is – as it suits them better. Meanwhile we are stuck often defending our side and hating the other.
Gaffa,
“Being all things to all people”
A very nice way to sum up moderate politics. The problem being that by trying to please everyone, nothing gets done.
I agree that people need to rediscover the importance of actually learning details about the candidates they vote for. I do not, however, think there is any shortage of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” Republicans. Finding a Democrat that fits that bill may be a bit harder to do, although I am sure a few exist. As you said, research the candidates.
Actually, your example of both parties turning out robotic clones who do nothing but tow the party line is not very relevant in the U.S. What we get instead is Republicans who spout Conservative values like a mantra (the party line), and then once elected act like moderate Democrats. On the other hand, we get Democrats who spout Blue Dog rhetoric to the point that voters think they are getting a moderate Republican in disguise. When these moderate sounding Democrats get elected, they vote right along with the Obamunists 90% of the time. Do you notice a trend? Everyone tries to sound as Conservative as possible to get elected, then once in office they all behave further to the left. The American people (for the most part) did not back away from the Republicans because they were too conservative. They stopped supporting a party that was not matching conservative words with conservative actions.
As for a two party system restricting viewpoints into two narrow bandwidths, I would suggest that you take a closer look at some of the nutjobs and kooks that make up sizable portions of both parties here in the U.S.. 😛
@Lightbringer
Interesting – as that brings me to another point. How can we as voters have it some way that politicians keep closer to what they promise in there manifestos? It is frustrating when you vote for someone and then once in power they change tack. I understand that events happen and there practically needs to be some flexibility but it also feels we are often blantantly lied to. I would like to see aspects of manifestos/promises somehow being legally enforceable documents.
For example – Tony Blair in his 1997 manifesto promised there would be a referendum on Proportional Representation. This was after 18 years of his political party being in the wilderness. Of course he wins a landslide and he gets a go on running the country – so putting the electional process to a referendum is no longer in his personal interest. But there’s no practical reason why for the rest of us – that promise could not have been put in place. After 12 years now of Labour that promise has been buried along with quite a few others.
@Gaffa
The only way to make manifestos (we call them campaign promises) legally binding is to boot them out of office (in the next election) for not living up to them. Sadly, all too many citizens forget about such promises shortly after the election, mainly because they only (barely) pay any attention to politics during an election. When the next election cycle comes around, unless the unfulfilled promise is a doozy (“Read my lips…No New Taxes!”), the average voter sees and hears only the new barrage of sweet talk and lies. What was said and promised 2-4-6 years ago is completely forgotten.
I am not sure how to motivate your average Joe to pay attention, but this phenomenon is a root cause of politicians lying through their teeth. On one hand they know that promising the moon gets more voter attention and support, on the other hand they also know they are unlikely to be held accountable for spouting bulls&%t. Perhaps someone whose job it is to report information on these jokers impartially. Such a group could print information about what politicians have promised, and compare it to what they actually accomplished. I would almost suggest that such publications be called newspapers, but we already know that they are in the business of printing propaganda and slanted versions of events to protect their heroes and friends. LOL