I hate this

I hate that conservatives are so divided right now. We work much better when we all work together, don’t we? The ‘big split’ has only been going on for about two weeks now, but already I’m missing the days when we stood together.

I wonder if the wounds will heal anytime soon. I want to get back to the way things were.

56 Responses to "I hate this"

Baklava says:

October 17, 2005 at 1:27 pm

Disagreement is fine with me.

Attacking isn’t.

I’ve been disappointingly surprised in the level of attacks even though there is no substantive differences people have with Miers opinions.
PCD says:

October 17, 2005 at 1:29 pm

Sister,

Don’t sweat this. W didn’t prepare the base well for this nomination. He’s paying for it.

I’m taking a wait and see attitude myself. I’ve felt burned by the Country Clubbers and by Bush, Sr. I remeber being criticized for sounding off then, but this is all healthy in the long run.

Look at the Democrats. They don’t have much to say because they have noting rooted in any principle other than cleaving to their special interests.
Lorica says:

October 17, 2005 at 1:35 pm

Ohhh they will Dear. Way back in the 90’s, 😆 , Dr. James Dobson told Newt Gingrich that someone better start acknowledging the fact that alot of Christians are in the Republican party, or he was going to start a new party and seek out those very same Christians. There was not a party split then, and I don’t think there will be one now.

I think what alot of folk are upset about is that, we expected Scalia to get the chance at being Chief Justice. We expected Janice Rodgers Brown to be nominated Supreme Court or someone who has a proven conservative track record. This is just disappointment working it’s way out. It will all be good soon. Always – Lorica
Seth says:

October 17, 2005 at 2:01 pm

I’m actually kind of ashamed of my fellow conservatives who are attacking Dubya over the Miers nomination.

We reelected Bush because we felt he was the man to lead the country(I still do). Therefore, the least we can do is let him make the judgement calls that are part of his job. If these people don’t trust his judgement, they shouldn’t have voted for him.

As far as his picking a candidate less likely than several more popular choices to trigger a major battle in the Senate confirmation hearings, I don’t blame the man — these conservatives who oppose him now are the same ones that, despite our overwhelming majority on Capitol Hill, let the Democrats walk all over them in previous confirmation hearings for Bush nominees. Why should Bush trust those all-mouth-no-spine lightweights to back him up now?
They’re acting like a bunch of whining liberals.
Walter E. Wallis says:

October 17, 2005 at 3:57 pm

Never fall in love with a politician, they’ll break your heart every time.
Hang on to your philosophy through thick and thicker. Did anybody ever tell you you’re cute when you are mad? [and then duck?]
madmatt says:

October 17, 2005 at 4:12 pm

Thats what happens when you have a group of religious zealots acting as the base for purely corporate interests. And yet neither group wants to improve life for the average american.
dennis says:

October 17, 2005 at 4:46 pm

You want to get back to the way things were – but when?

Back in the 50s we had Eisenhower in the White House. He was a Republican and a good conservative president – possibly even a great one. Although a general, he never had to pump himself up with military trappings while in public office. He presided over an unprecedented expansion of prosperity in a time of relative peace.

I hung Nixon signs out the window of our school bus when he was running for president, but Kennedy won. He was a flawed man, but a good liberal president with high ideals and a keen intelligence. It wasn’t until much later that I understood these things. And I also began to understand the times so many folks romanticize really weren’t that perfect. There were duck and cover drills in elementary school, in case of nuclear attack, and do-it-yourself bomb shelter plans in consumer magazines. I had no idea black people were still being lynched even then – as a child from the suburbs in Texas I’d never seen one except through the car window.

Aside from all our very short and selective memories, ST, I suspect part of the problem may be that many people no longer understand what it means to be either “conservative” or “liberal”.

Traditional political conservatism and liberalism have actual dictionary definitions that are quite specific. Those definitions might be useful in bringing Americans back to the same page when discussing issues of relevance to us all. It serves no purpose for two halves of the country to be speaking in a manner that defines common terms so differently.

Ezra Klein says, “Definitions should speak of actions, they should be, in a real and basic sense, little policy platforms that signal what we believe by explaining what we’ll enact.”

That makes sense to me. Of course it does little good when either half of the country may use coded language that seems to express some simple verity, like “family values” to appeal to the general public – when to faithful insiders the term may signify anything from “legally marginalize gays” to “support parental consent laws” or any number of other things they’d rather keep in code. “Pro-life” is another term that frustrates honest discussion, as so many people who assume that label have no problem with capital punishment or pre-emptive war, which certainly are not pro-life in practice. It would be more useful to simply say whether one prefers the legalization or the criminalization of abortion.

“Conservative” is a good word. It invokes conservation, a desire to preserve the good things in America, it traditionally stands for fiscal responsibility and caution. There should be no negative connotations attached to traditional conservative values – only to self-professed conservatives who fail to to embody those good values.

“Liberal” also is a good word. It invokes generosity, open-mindedness and largeness of thinking. From the King James Bible: “The instruments of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speak right. But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.” Isaiah 32:7, 8. There should be no stigma in being called a liberal.

This could lead to a much longer discussion than I have time for, but in short I believe it would be of great value to strive for simplicity and adherence to standard definitions in political discourse. From The American HeritageÂ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000:

Conservatism: 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. 3. The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. 4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.

Liberalism: 1. The state or quality of being liberal. 2a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party. 3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.

I believe any philosophy that is demonstrably outside such standard definitions should choose some other term to define itself, for the sake of bringing clarity and honesty back to the discussion.
Baklava says:

October 17, 2005 at 5:00 pm

Madmatt, isn’t it great thinking you know what people think? Just a quick question since you know – Who does “want to improve life for the average american”?
Baklava says:

October 17, 2005 at 5:11 pm

Dennis. I’m sorry but either you are a newbie to politics or you have ignored being taught about what conservatives and liberals stand for. The dictionary definition doesn’t represent liberals or conservatives.

Let me put it to you this way. Would you as a liberals like it if other people defined you? Would conservatives try to tell you that the way other people are defining them is inaccurate and then would you listen to them or be stubborn?

If the status quo is increasing spending every year for over 6 decades, yet I as a centrist/conservative want a stop in increases for the next 10 years while we reprioritize (read-not status quo)what we spend on and believe most republicans and Democrats are to the LEFT of me then why would you insist that the millions of people who may agree with me have to call ourselves progressives or any other word. Let us define ourselves. And stop with the attacks such as “legally marginalize gays”. The situation with homosexuals is that they want to change what marriage means. Your attacks doesn’t change the fact that CA and Oregon and many other places of Democrats and REpublicans want to keep marriage unchanged. Nobody is discriminated against. Every man has the right to marry a woman that is legally marryable (not family and of age and other specifics) and vice versa. This has been the situation for centuries.

While you may disagree with the majority of the voters, you can’t speak to our desires to “legally marginalize gays” because you can’t possibly know what is in someone elses head.
shortz says:

October 17, 2005 at 5:23 pm

“I’ve been disappointingly surprised in the level of attacks even though there is no substantive differences people have with Miers opinions. ”

That’s how these people operate. People against the war in Iraq are traitors. People against miers are elitists.
John Gillnitz says:

October 17, 2005 at 5:27 pm

I hate it that Americans are so divided right now.
Baklava says:

October 17, 2005 at 5:31 pm

Bush beats LBJ in spending

Social Security Status Quo versus Reform: What’s the Tradeoff?
matt says:

October 17, 2005 at 5:32 pm

First off – I love the blog name!

But as for the missing the good old days – I would disagree. It’s true that the right’s ability to fall in lock step with Bush Adminstration and GOP leadership was truly the oil that fueled the Reps engine. But I think that single minded approach, one that treated dissent as treason, is exactly the root cause of what ales both the GOP and America. I for one am tired as being branded as a ‘moonbat’ or ‘unAmerican’ if I dare speak my mind over how inept Bush is as a leader or highlight alternatives to his policy goals. But most troubling is that the GOP I could respect, although not vote with, has been coopted by neocons and religious fundamentalists. So while I do hope the GOP can regain its party and bring some much needed sanity to its overall positions, I for one do not miss the unified parroting of the Bush Adminstration.
CavalierX says:

October 17, 2005 at 5:33 pm

Personally, I think this kind of debate is healthy in the long run. We’re not sheep, and we’re not wearing Kool-Aid moustaches. Are Conservative ideals just talking points, or do we take these things seriously? We need to show Republicans how we really feel about these things before the 2006 and 2008 elections, to let them know we want Conservative candidates to run.
CavalierX says:

October 17, 2005 at 5:37 pm

>From The American HeritageÂ® Dictionary
>of the English Language, Fourth Edition,
>2000

Dictionary definitions of English words have little or nothing to do with the actual political philosophies of Conservatives (weaker central government, little government interference, individual responsibility and initiative) and Liberals (powerful central control, government interference, enforced equality of results).
Pam says:

October 17, 2005 at 6:18 pm

I feel bad about the fact that many have forgotten what the role of a Judge is supposed to be. We should have expected a conservative, but beyond that, there is no guarantee as to what that person will do.
Jay says:

October 17, 2005 at 7:26 pm

I hate to see you sad, 🙁 I’ve been down about it too. I miss it too. I think it will all pass over soon enough!
Craig says:

October 17, 2005 at 8:08 pm

“Back in the 50s we had Eisenhower in the White House. He was a Republican and a good conservative president – possibly even a great one. Although a general, he never had to pump himself up with military trappings while in public office. He presided over an unprecedented expansion of prosperity in a time of relative peace.”

And what were the tax rates under Eisenhower? What share of taxes did business pay versus citizens’ income taxes? How strong were unions?

Look at these and many other comparisons, and you see that the 50’s would be described by today’s rabid right as a commie paradise – yet the economy had “unprecedented expansion of prosperity”.

Just as the right predicted doom if Clinton’s 1993 tax increase for the top 2% passes, predicting lower economic growth, inflation wildly increasing, and even reduced taxes and soaring deficits.

What happened was the opposite.

What we need is for the people who support the right to stop being blind.
Kevin says:

October 17, 2005 at 9:57 pm

I’m just happy the attacks on Bush aren’t mindless. There are many reasons to be against Mier’s nomination:

-She may not have judicial restraint, and just vote “the way it should be”.
-She was not as extremely astute in college or aftwerwards as other non-judges such as Rehnquist were (most were at least first in class, from our toughest colleges)
-She is obviously not the most qualified.
-Since she’s not the “best”, we could use this opportunity to let Bush know he can’t do whatever he wants, and has to stick to conservative ideals (maybe close borders, cut spending, cancel prescription drug thing?)

There are lots of reasons to be pro-Miers as well:

-Bush digs her.
-She may be the most conservative judge that can get through our weak republican congress.
-She may actually be more conservative than she seems (seems like an O’Connor to me though because of her anti-federalist society pro-NAACP comment).
-We have not heard her testimony yet.
-It’s important for conservatives to be unified.

So there are good reasons for opinions on either side, and I’m sure there are more on both. We should rejoice in the fact that, other than the “elitist” or “sexist” comments heard in the first week, the conversation has not devolved into mindless rhetoric. We are not hearing thoughtless drivel like “No Blood for Miers” or “You can’t hug with nuclear Miers” (or my favorite, “Bush lied, Miers was elected to SCOTUS”. Rather, we are hearing reasoned debate, based on logic and information.

My point is this: the conservative principle is not being eroded in any way from this disagreement. A spirited debate on this will only serve to make us stronger. Conservatives will continue to get along despite this minor disagreement. Bush will learn from it to, and that’s a “good thing”.
dennis says:

October 18, 2005 at 12:02 am

Kevin, we can hope Bush learns somewhat from the disagreement his nomination has stirred up. From his track record we can’t assume that, however.

Baklava, thank you once again for your kindness in steering me toward enlightenment. But my earlier point has nothing to do with with partisan agendas; it has everything to do with precision vs. unacknowledged hidden meanings and often deceptive or malicious twisting of language across the political spectrum.

Of course our entire vocabulary is suffused with alternate definitions. Many of them enrich our language, but when good words become epithets (such as “liberal” or “Christian”) then language is cheapened, original meanings become corrupted and our understanding of reality suffers. It’s a cultural phenomenon; neither party has a monopoly on this. And yes, I realize it’s a utopian dream to expect the political world to reform itself in favor of gentility and precision.

Nevertheless I hope our culture doesn’t forget these things entirely. Standard definitions are far more productive for conflict resolution than the pejorative and reckless language being slung around on many blogs now. I know this idea is rather old-fashioned and possibly a bit conservative for some folks, but I believe it could be helpful in healing some of the rifts that have opened in American political life. I’m with ST on this – only I think it applies to all of us, on both sides of the aisle.
Sister Toldjah says:

October 18, 2005 at 1:20 am

PCD and Lorica: Thanks for the reassurances. Maybe in a few months we’ll all look back on this and say “remember how crazy things got there for a few weeks? Thank goodness we’re back to normal ”

Seth: I do think the Gang of 14 played into Bush’s decision. Almost no question in my mind it was a factor.

Walter: Haha 😎

madmatt: Explain please?

Dennis: Back to the way things were about two weeks ago, not 1950! Sheesh.

Bak: “Madmatt, isn’t it great thinking you know what people think? Just a quick question since you know – Who does “want to improve life for the average american”? ”

Certainly not us eeeevil Republicans!

shortz: The left’s hand’s are not exactly clean in the name calling dept, are they?

John: Me too. Welcome to the ST blog, BTW.

Matt: Welcome – and glad you like the blog name. As to your other comments,see my note to shortz. There’s no shortage of name-calling going around on either side. It’s not really an excuse, just an observation.

Cav: I agree that debate in and of itself is healthy, and noted in one of my first Miers posts (and on my Allman/Smash interview) that this debate on the Miers nomination should prove once and for all that conservatives don’t march lock step behind the President’s every word. However, it’s been the nastiness involved in some of the debating that bothers me. Like NRO getting flooded with nasty emails (some of them anti-Semitic in nature) Hugh Hewitt being called names, etc. I’m not saying that there haven’t been any good and fair arguments made either pro or con on Miers – there have been many, I’m just disappointed to see the level to which some of the disagreements have been taken. I don’t mind disagreement at all – it’s good for the party and I love spirited debates, but what’s not good for the party is when some people stoop to making cheap personal attacks (as has happened in some emails towards NRO staff – as they have posted at the Corner, and has happened to Hugh Hewitt) simply because they disagree.

Pam: Yep, we really never know for sure what we are getting.

Jay: I hope you’re right!

Craig: Right – and the left goes into viewing the economy with their eyes wide open, eh? That must have been why so many of them were correct when they said that Bush’s tax cuts were going to tank the economy.

Kevin: I do hope this animosity some on the right are showing each other is short-lived … as I noted to Cav, disagreement is fine and healthy for the party, but some of the arguments have been more than a bit on the low side

—-

Thanks to all for the comments in this post – I do hope the divisions in the party will heal, as when we are united we are stronger. And united doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. The right has had healthy disagreements amongst themselves on any number of things over the last five years, including immigration, the war, spending … and we’ve been just fine. Things are just different with some of the Miers arguments, though, in terms of some of the reactions to them. I do hope in the long run this will be good for the conservative movement so we can get on sound footing again – and I’ll also be glad when everyone gets back to battling the Dems, instead of each other
Craig says:

October 18, 2005 at 3:04 am

“Craig: Right – and the left goes into viewing the economy with their eyes wide open, eh? That must have been why so many of them were correct when they said that Bush’s tax cuts were going to tank the economy.”

There is no comparison between the right’s wrongness on the Clinton tax cut, where pretty much every public right-wing figure made dire and false predictions about the effect, and the left’s predictions about Bush’s tax cuts.

The tax cuts for the top income people haven’t even kicked in yet for the mst part – their share greatly increases through 2010, but the effect on the deficit is already beginning. There’s every reason to think that the predictions about the long-term effects of the crony spending shifting from spending that’s good for the country, and the increased deficits, can lead to terrible consequences – and will if the Bush plan continues.

Poverty rates decreased every year under Clinton and have increased every year under Bush. Fact after fact says the same thing; too many on the right are blind and don’t use any facts and stick to their false ideology.
Sister Toldjah says:

October 18, 2005 at 6:57 am

“There is no comparison between the right’s wrongness on the Clinton tax cut, where pretty much every public right-wing figure made dire and false predictions about the effect, and the left’s predictions about Bush’s tax cuts.”

Right. Of course there’s “no comparison.” Why should I have even bothered to interupt your rant against the right when you’ve got ’em all figured out? Quite interesting you’re going on about ‘too many on the right are blind and don’t use fact’ when that’s exactly what you’re doing here, by claiming the comparisons I made with the left weren’t valid ones. Oh, and I don’t know where you get this bit about “false ideology”? Newsflash: the liberal ideology isn’t the only ‘real’ ideology out there, Craig. It’s too bad you’ve convinced yourself otherwise. Just because you don’t like the right doesn’t make their ideology any less real than yours.
PCD says:

October 18, 2005 at 8:12 am

Craig,

Being blind? Is that what you call being correct and not being Politically Correct?

Liberals don’t know squat about economics in a free society. Let me remind you about that great piece of Liberal class warfare dogma that the Democrats enacted called the Luxury Tax. In case you’ve forgotten this was a tax on “luxury” items the Democrats thought the “rich” were enjoying but not paying their fair share for. The effect was to drive purchases of “yachts” off shore where other countries were smart enough not to have such a tax. I remember the Bayliner company outside of Green Bay just about went out of business. I remember that the amount of unemployment benefits the governmnet paid out to workers who lost their jobs directly attibutable to the Luxury tax far exceeded any collections of the Luxury tax.

That is just one example that blind partisons such as yourself, Craig, just psychotically disavow.
Baklava says:

October 18, 2005 at 10:09 am

Craig. Please pick up an economics book.

1) The pres doesn’t control the economy. Clinton had little to do with the non-recession during his period. Q: Why did the economy grow during his period and then show signs of a recession coming between April and October 2000? Hint: It wasn’t Clinton’s policies – or the Republicans in Congress’s policies either. Q: Why did the economy have two recessions during Bush’s first 3 years in office?

If you don’t understand economis and have been listening to Democrat spin for the last 10 years you’ll get these answers wrong. My answers have nothing to do with Ed Gillespie talking points they are based in economics 101.

The more one understands economics the more one can transcend party politics. Democrats can’t seem to do this until given a long long economics lesson. The only Democrats that I’ve been able to convert got a long lesson on how economics work.

At the point that logic prevails, one can start to see how Democrats have a large habit of castigating Republicans erroneously on many issues.

This is not to say that Republicans are blame free. This is just to say that both parties are to the left of center but the Republicans are closer to centrist/conservatives and conservatives care about problems and offer solutions to problems also. Unfortunately two things happen:
1) Democrats demagogue conservative solutions because they don’t understand them (like the tax cuts for all income tax payers to help the economy during a double-dip recession)
2)Democrats talk as if they know what’s in a conservative’s heart and mind and guess what – a) They can’t b) they get it wrong

Craig wrote, Poverty rates decreased every year under Clinton and have increased every year under Bush. Fact after fact says the same thing; too many on the right are blind and don’t use any facts and stick to their false ideology.
1) Poverty rates decrease during growing economic periods. Again this isn’t due to a president’s magical abilities.
2) Poverty rates increase during recessions. When recession data was showing from April through October 2000 (before Bush got into office) And Bush’s proposals didn’t get enacted until 3rd quarter 2001 why would you blame Bush for poverty rates increasing when this happens during recessions. To the extent that presidents do have an effect on the economy with their proposals – less of an effect than the American people themselves, wouldn’t that first recession be blamed on Clinton?:wink:
3) Why would people on the right use poverty statistics generally? The RELEVANT issue is whether a certain proposal or policy would help or hurt the economy (not increase or decrease poverty -that is Democrat speak)

Hope to see your answers correct!:neutral:
Jim says:

October 18, 2005 at 11:08 am

If you want some encouragement regarding this whole situation read Rush Limbaugh’s Op/Ed in yesterday’s OpinionJournal. I commented on it here.
Necromancer says:

October 18, 2005 at 11:29 am

Perhaps those of you who actually uphold the constitution and believe in a balanced budget can come on over to the progressive movement where the water’s fine, the ethics are intact, and we haven’t ruined the country lately.

Speaking with the dead,

Necromancer
dug says:

October 18, 2005 at 11:33 am

What amuses me most is watching conservatives tying themselves into mental pretzels trying to defend this administration.

Yesterday’s proponent of “rule of law” becomes today’s critic of “the criminalization of conservatives.”

Once upon a time conservatives proposed fiscal responsibility and the Balanced Budget Amendment. Today it’s “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”

And my current favorite – “Torture is not the policy of the administration.” But when McCain adds an anti-torture amendment to a bill which would merely reinforce the existing Army Manual guidelines redarding torture, Bush theatens to use his veto pen for the very first time. Why? Because they “don’t want the president’s hands to be tied in the war or terror.” Tied from doing what exactly? It couldn’t be torture, could it?

Now that conservatives have all the power, you get all the responsibility that comes with it. It is quite a show to watch all the spluttering as conservatives discover just how awful their party is at governing the country.

You guys are priceless. Somebody pass me the popcorn.
Sister Toldjah says:

October 18, 2005 at 11:40 am

Not half as amusing as the fact that your party, supporters of which routinely rant about the gross ‘ineptitude’ of my party, can’t seem to find any candidates to beat such a ‘clueless, morally corrupt bunch’ (paraphrasing – and cleaning up – some of what I’ve read that passes for criticism from the left).

Amusing indeed.

Would you like some butter with that popcorn?
dug says:

October 18, 2005 at 11:43 am

Yes please.

I concede fully the political dominance of conservatives. It’s merely competence that they lack.
Sister Toldjah says:

October 18, 2005 at 11:44 am

Which says exactly what about your party?
dug says:

October 18, 2005 at 11:48 am

That we’re not as good at using false populism as yours, I guess.

Congrats.
Sister Toldjah says:

October 18, 2005 at 11:53 am

LOL. Can’t you just admit that the logical conclusion is that if, as people in your party say, the Republican party is so incompetent, then perhaps the party who can’t manage to beat them is *more* incompenent?
dug says:

October 18, 2005 at 12:08 pm

That assumes that the voters act logically. I guess we’ll see if that’s true or not over the next couple of elections, now that they’ve seen the true face of Republican governance.

Can you discern the difference between political skill and governing effectively? Judging from your posts I’m not so sure.

By the way, how’s that smaller government working out for you?

And do you really believe that the US is better off than it was five years ago? If so, you might want to wipe the kool-aid off your upper lip there.

dug, you only had to submit the comment once, per my note posted that all comments are on moderation. As far as ‘smaller government’ I’m not really sure why you’re concerned about that seeing as your party has never been one for smaller gov’t, has it? In case you haven’t noticed, the Republicans are in the middle of a revolt of sorts and trust me, if fiscally conservative Republicans (such as myself) really got the type of gov’t they wanted in terms of fiscal responsiblity, you really wouldn’t like us. Your concern for the state of my party IS touching, though, I must admit. I also note your implication that voters only seem to ‘act logically’ if they vote against Republicans. I find your mild jibes towards me amusing, and to answer your question, yes I do think we’re better off today than we were five years ago – especially considering that the alternative would have been four years of Gore – possibly more. The Kool Aid tastes great up here on Park Avenue, dug, BTW. It’s premium stuff. FWIW, around here we generally favor debating liberals who don’t think Republicans are the root of all evil. Your disdain for Republicans and their supporters seems to run very high, which brings me to the conclusion that this blog isn’t the right fit for you. Maybe one of the liberal blogs out there will be more to your liking. –ST
Uber Patriot says:

October 18, 2005 at 12:36 pm

Liberals continue to lose elections because of outrageous statements like this.

[T]o attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Here’s the link to that entire socialist rant.

LINK

America Uber Allah!

“Uber Patriot” – I combined both comments into one. I’m not really sure what your point is, BTW. Instead of tap dancing around it, want get to it? –ST
dug says:

October 18, 2005 at 12:51 pm

Sorry. I assumed I had failed to post it properly.

And please don’t assume I hate all Republicans. I miss what conservatism used to stand for. There are definitely men and women of honor in the GOP, but the party has chosen to marginalize them.

McCain in 08!
shortz says:

October 18, 2005 at 12:56 pm

” Can’t you just admit that the logical conclusion is that if, as people in your party say, the Republican party is so incompetent, then perhaps the party who can’t manage to beat them is *more* incompenent?”

There are different competences. Governing and campaigning are very different skills. At least we hope so. I don’t want some feel good rally when an enemy attacks or disaster strikes.
pinky says:

October 18, 2005 at 1:26 pm

Uber Patriot, do you really think I am so stupid that I don’t know when someone is attempting to post using multiple user IDs? As far as your crack about conservative minds, do you remember what Teresa Heinz Kerry told that reporter she got mad at to do last year? Useful advice for you to take, methinks. –ST
PCD says:

October 18, 2005 at 2:23 pm

“I don’t want some feel good rally when an enemy attacks or disaster strikes.”

Shortz, that is all we got out of the Clintons. Down and out? A Hillary aide will hand you an absentee ballot to fill out. The Khobar Towers get bombed. Bill Clinton hits up Prince Abdullah for a contribution to his Presidential Library (and Massage Parlour). I can go on and on.

Necromancer, what ethics? Barbara “Check Bouncer” Boxer? Chappaquiddick Ted? John “I Love Ho Chi Minh” Kerry? Ronnie “False Charges” Earle? Come on! Go manure spread elsewhere. We aren’t buying it here.
Zorro says:

October 18, 2005 at 3:22 pm

sorry, honey. it’s over.
shortz says:

October 18, 2005 at 3:28 pm

“Shortz, that is all we got out of the Clintons. Down and out? A Hillary aide will hand you an absentee ballot to fill out. ”

I see you appreciate the difference between governing and electioneering competences. PR, photo ops and scripted conversations are great for electioneering. But don’t make for great policymaking.
Robert says:

October 18, 2005 at 3:38 pm

Cut the “small government” crap.

They both want big government. One to help those with power, and one to help those that don’t.

That’s why you have some who think that your hard-earned dollars should be taxed, but money just given to you (Estate taxes) shouldn’t be.
dennis says:

October 18, 2005 at 3:42 pm

ST said: “Back to the way things were about two weeks ago, not 1950! Sheesh.”

There are sound reasons to reference that era of our history. In 1954 (under Eisenhower) the US engineered a coup to topple a democratically elected leader in Iran. Cold war arguments were used for some time to justify this, but the real reason was that Mossadegh wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil industry. We put in his place a manipulable tyrant, the Shah, whose picture beamed down from every wall when I was in Tehran in 1972. Nobody could say a word against him without being thrown in prison, tortured by his Savak police and possibly killed.

Remember this well: we ourselves uprooted the best promise of an authentic democratic Middle East, and in its stead planted the very seeds of the Islamic revolution we are contending with now. 9/11 didn’t happen because “they hate our freedom” or because of any failure of Clinton. It happened because radical Muslims resent our long record of interference for self-interested reasons.

As George Santayana once famously said, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

As for the GOP getting “back to battling the Dems,” ST, why aren’t Republicans and Democrats getting together as Americans and setting an example to the world of benevolence and respect for human dignity? Or is waging war, dehumanizing others and fighting among ourselves just too much fun for our sports-besotted culture? Maybe I haven’t looked in enough posts here, but I have yet to see you (or your GOP correspondents) take a clear, unequivocal position on the anti-torture amendment and Mr. Bush’s threat to veto it. You sidestepped Dug’s mention of the issue, but I think it’s fair to let your readers know plainly where you stand on this. With McCain or Bush?

As for the Dems finding candidates to beat Republican leaders, 06 is still ahead. Part of the problem up to now may be that the Dems have nobody with the taste for blood to match Tom DeLay’s, but I’m not sure that’s a character flaw. It’s ultimately up to the public to exercise sound collective judgment; my fear is that too many are enamored with shock and awe (belligerency) to make wise decisions any more.

PCD, talk about ethics in the present tense. It does no good to divert attention to past bad actors – we need accountability for what is going on in the here and now.

Craig and Dug, one big lesson I’ve learned from posting on right wing blogs is the wisdom of Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:6. We walk a very fine line here.
PCD says:

October 18, 2005 at 3:55 pm

Dennis, Your past may have begun 5 minutes ago, but tell me how many Democrats facing the House Ethics committee have been investigated and judged? How about bad actor Nancy Pelosi or Baghdad Jim McDermott? When do you stop spouting platitudes and you get off your duff to demand accountability for current Democrat bad actors like Ronnie Earle? Al Gore? George Soros? Cynthia McKinnie? Harry Reid? Hmmm?
dennis says:

October 18, 2005 at 5:02 pm

PCD, it isn’t productive to be pointing in every other direction while your own house is crumbling around you.

The GOP spent tens of millions in taxpayer money to investigate Bill Clinton and ultimately found nothing more worthwhile to prosecute than lies over a private sexual encounter – a matter of zero relevance to national security or public policy. The present high-profile investigations of GOP figures do involve matters of considerable relevance to national security and public policy, most notably the matter of how we were led into a war that inevitably will change the geopolitical balance in the world. And according to the consensus of most analysts outside the Bush administration, the changes already have significantly degraded American security and interests.

Chickens coming home to roost. Tragically, too late to prevent catastrophic damage and loss of life. There will be much more.

And still not a peep about the anti-torture amendment.
Sister Toldjah says:

October 18, 2005 at 9:27 pm

dug, are you a disgruntled Republican or a conservative Democrat? Your initial post gave me the impression you were not a Republican, especially when you used the term “you guys” as if you weren’t including yourself in either the conservative or Republican category – would you clarify please?
Brian says:

October 18, 2005 at 9:34 pm

I, for one, am very happy to see the split in the Republican Party. For the past two and a half years, there have been no checks and balances between the legislative and executive branch. There has been no debate on important issues. Bills are just pushed through Congress by the Republican Leadership and rubber-stamped by the president. President Bush is the first president in 176 years to go through an entire four-year term without vetoing a single bill. Hopefully the Republicans will lose their monopoly on power in the next election and there will be some accountability or at least debate on important issues. Our country can’t afford any more Republican Medicare Prescription Drug plans.
Baklava says:

October 18, 2005 at 10:04 pm

Dennis wrote, “but I have yet to see you (or your GOP correspondents) take a clear, unequivocal position on the anti-torture amendment“.

Yes. Because Bush and we are FOR torture. /end sarcasm Keep on believing that and you lose the debate of ideas for solutions.

There is a disconnect between your allegations (continued pattern-isn’t your torturous accusatory behavior nice?) and reality. Read the following trascript between Scctt McClellan and the harassing reporters:

Q The papers have been satiated in the last few days, again with another round of our abuse of prisoners and detainees and torture. Has the President ever issued a directive to all military prisons under our control that they should not torture and they should abide by the Geneva Accord?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Yes. In fact, we did that quite some time ago.

Q There is an actual directive?

MR. McCLELLAN: If people are involved in wrongdoing, they’re going to be held to account. And that’s exactly what — that’s exactly what this administration has done.

Q I asked you if the President has issued any executive order against torture.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President made it very clear that we do not torture and we do not condone torture. And if people —

Q But we do.

MR. McCLELLAN: — and if people break the law, they are brought to account. And that’s exactly what we’ve done in the instances that you’re referring to.

Q Why don’t they know it, then? I mean, why has there been this continued abuse?

MR. McCLELLAN: They do know it. And the Secretary of Defense and military leaders have taken steps to prevent such horrible atrocities from happening again.

Q But not if it goes beyond sergeant. Why is that?

MR. McCLELLAN: You might want to talk to the Department of Defense, because they can brief you —

Q No, I think this is something at the presidential level.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, but I think it’s important —

Q It has to do something with our reputation.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it’s important for the American people to know the facts. And if you look at the facts, people have been brought to justice that are involved in wrongdoing. And any allegation of wrongdoing is taken very seriously by this administration. We have an outstanding military; 99.9 percent of the men and women in uniform do an outstanding job and represent the American people in the best possible way. They uphold our standards and our values.

Q Do you have any papers showing the President has issued a directive against torture?

MR. McCLELLAN: We’ve actually put out paper previously about the directives that he’s made —

Q An actual order?

MR. McCLELLAN: — and he has publicly stated it very clearly to everyone in his administration and to the American people.
————
And do you know what Dennis your attitude continues to be condescending. Instead of legitimate debate it is attack after attack. You are a torturer. I don’t mean that lightly. How do you respond to your behavior?
Sister Toldjah says:

October 18, 2005 at 10:17 pm

Zorro: “sorry, honey. it’s over.”

You don’t know me well enough to call me that.
BigRed says:

October 18, 2005 at 10:45 pm

Face it. It cannot last.

How can intellecual conservatives take it when the Bible thumpers force their children to learn “intelligent design”?
dennis says:

October 19, 2005 at 12:07 am

Ha, ha! Baklava! “Everybody funny – now you funny too!” (apologies to George Thorogood)

Now we’re quoting Scott McClellan for a reliable source??!

But still you don’t simply say whether you agree with McCain or Bush on the no-torture amendment. It really is a simple question, no?
Baklava says:

October 19, 2005 at 12:09 am

Nice. Bible Thumpers. And you are a name caller or a debater? Your post answered that question.
dennis says:

October 19, 2005 at 12:56 am

Cognitive dissonance: when two cognitions or beliefs are held, and there is a conflict between them.

Belief 1. “The President made it very clear that we do not torture and we do not condone torture” (Scott McClellan)

Belief 2. The McCain no-torture amendment must be defeated or the president will veto the bill to which it is attached; i.e. the US must maintain the prerogative to subject detainees to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

“….A person in a state of cognitive dissonance will then seek consonance. There are various ways to achieve this. However, changing a cognition gives some discomfort: one has to reflect and admit to oneself that one has had a wrong cognition….”

Festinger, Leon. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
Chief says:

October 19, 2005 at 9:07 am

Sister,

I think the discussion is healthy. Lemmings we are not. Look what Chertoff has announced regarding illegal immigration. Do you think that was just a coincidence? Bush is feeling the heat from his right, and he is doing something about it. It’s all good!

Chief
Baklava says:

October 19, 2005 at 11:54 am

The problem is that there is a policy of no torture for our Armed Services…. The problem also is that if we do find a single top Al-Qaeda guy who knows information about millions being blown up in a day or two we need to extract information from him somehow someway or your good-deedism and opportunism to call people names will get millions dead.

Dershowitz (sp) a liberal after 9/11 wrote articles on this subject. I’m sorry your propensity is to call names and act like someone is for torture on a normal everyday basis when that isn’t true. But that’s just it. It isn’t true.

And you and people out there like Molly Ivans writing head lines like “Bush is for torture” are just shallow and full of hate and CLOSE MINDED.

There is no debate with you.

It’s you attack.

We defend.

Over and over.

Nice pattern.

You can either get over yourself and talk to us like we conservatives are human beings or keep on acting like we are evil and/or not-caring and the debate continues like this.

Because for you to win the debate I guess is for us to say, “oh. you are right. I’m not caring”
Sister Toldjah says:

October 19, 2005 at 12:07 pm

Ok, gents – it’s time to close this discussion. I think the points each of you wanted to be made have been made.

Comments are closed.