 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Christians for Lieberman for President. | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/8/2003 10:09 AM (GMT -6) |   | I posted the following at TheologyWeb under the link I started there titled the same as I did here.
Why I would like Bush out of office.
quote:
dlw2003:
As a Christian working/living abroad, I think it is very true that the world sees "evangelical" Christianity through Bush in large part and that his extreme lack of popularity does not serve Christianity well. And it doesn't serve the state of Democracy well for us to vote him in because he's prolife, born-again, and not Bill Clinton.
The only reason Bush II/Bush I/Reagan were able to get elected is because of the support of religious/social conservatives and all of these presidents have easily spent the vast majority of their political capital on economic conservative policies.
The same is largely true for the Republicans as a whole. That is why we gave China a perpetual Most Favored Nation status even though this took away our main policy instrument we had to make the gov't of China provide for religious freedom for its people.
When Bush initially spoke of intervening abroad only when it was in our nation's interest, it should have been spelled intere$t$. Risking the costs of economic sanctions or the threat of some modest military action could serve to enhance the freedom of religion in many underdeveloped countries where religious minorities are often oppressed in part because they serve as the "Jews of the underdeveloped world". They are the political activists pressing for changes, reductions in corruption. Hence, pressing for religious freedom will also increase political freedom, which will reduce corruption, which has been shown to be the thing chiefly responsible for the starvation in our world today.
But, no, we were not supposed to intervene unless the political developments in a country threaten the property of some MultiNational Corporation.
I think that the huge amounts of money that Bush is able to raise today show how determined economic conservatives are to getting him reelected. The push for making a heterosexual marriage amendment to the US constitution probably may have even been timed so as to ensure that the cultural wars(which are real, but not best fought in the political sphere) would influence the next election.
As such, I would gladly support Lieberman as the Democratic candidate who seems to have a decent chance of beating Bush.
His accountability to the Democratic Party and desire for reelection will probably moderate his stances on both economic issues, but I think there are compromises on abortion/homosexuality that should be acceptable to social conservatives and there are a whole host of other issues we could press for as delineated in another post of mine at another discussion board.
www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2269
dlw
As a Christian working/living abroad, I think it is very true that the world sees "evangelical" Christianity through Bush in large part and that his extreme lack of popularity does not serve Christianity well. And it doesn't serve the state of Democracy well for us to vote him in because he's prolife, born-again, and not Bill Clinton.
The only reason Bush II/Bush I/Reagan were able to get elected is because of the support of religious/social conservatives and all of these presidents have easily spent the vast majority of their political capital on economic conservative policies.
The same is largely true for the Republicans as a whole. That is why we gave China a perpetual Most Favored Nation status even though this took away our main policy instrument we had to make the gov't of China provide for religious freedom for its people.
When Bush initially spoke of intervening abroad only when it was in our nation's interest, it should have been spelled intere$t$. Risking the costs of economic sanctions or the threat of some modest military action could serve to enhance the freedom of religion in many underdeveloped countries where religious minorities are often oppressed in part because they serve as the "Jews of the underdeveloped world". They are the political activists pressing for changes, reductions in corruption. Hence, pressing for religious freedom will also increase political freedom, which will reduce corruption, which has been shown to be the thing chiefly responsible for the starvation in our world today.
But, no, we were not supposed to intervene unless the political developments in a country threaten the property of some MultiNational Corporation.
I think that the huge amounts of money that Bush is able to raise today show how determined economic conservatives are to getting him reelected. The push for making a heterosexual marriage amendment to the US constitution probably may have even been timed so as to ensure that the cultural wars(which are real, but not best fought in the political sphere) would influence the next election.
As such, I would gladly support Lieberman as the Democratic candidate who seems to have a decent chance of beating Bush.
His accountability to the Democratic Party and desire for reelection will probably moderate his stances on both economic issues, but I think there are compromises on abortion/homosexuality that should be acceptable to social conservatives and there are a whole host of other issues we could press for as delineated in another post of mine at another discussion board.
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/for...p?TOPIC_ID=2269
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/8/2003 10:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
I know this sounds really simplistic, and correct me if I'm wrong in thinking this way, but I can't ever seem to get past the issue of abortion when electing leaders. I honestly feel like it's a sin to elect anyone to office who supports abortion, so I tend to make that one issue the deciding factor in my decision. It really irks me because I can absolutely dislike every stance a politician takes but if he is pro-life, while his/her opponent is pro-choice, I'll vote for the pro-lifer - even if I support the pro-choicer on all the other issues. I just don't want the babies' blood on my hands.
Yeah, that sort of does put things in perspective, doesn't it. I guess my answer would be that experience has shown that the current practice of many Christians voting pro-life hasn't had much success in reducing abortions.
So from a pragmatic perspective, I believe it is worthwhile to change political strategies and accept certain limits regarding what politically we can do to prevent abortions. This doesn't mean though that we shouldn't try to change hearts on this issue and that may be ultimately more important, since as a Baptist I believe that when a young child, who hasn't reached the age of accountability, dies that they will automatically go to heaven.
That doesn't mean we should abort all babies or commit infanticide and it shouldn't rationalize abortions since they are in fact tragic, but it does put the objective of preventing abortions in perspective as a worthy goal, in line with Christian history since we were responsible for establishing birth as when human life begins, but not our ultimate goal as Christians.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/11/2003 12:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Bush Misuses Science, Report Says
The report can be found here in pdf format
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8-2003Aug7.html
quote:
Bush Misuses Science, Report Says
Democrats Say Data Are Distorted to Boost Conservative Policies
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 8, 2003; Page A15
The Bush administration has repeatedly mischaracterized scientific facts to bolster its political agenda in areas ranging from abstinence education and condom use to missile defense, according to a detailed report released yesterday by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).
The White House quickly dismissed the report as partisan sniping.
The 40-page document, "Politics and Science in the Bush Administration," was compiled by the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee's special investigations division. It marks the launch of a new effort by Waxman and others in Congress to highlight simmering anger among scientists and others who believe that President Bush -- much more than his predecessors -- has been spiking science with politics to justify conservative policies in areas such as reproductive rights, embryo research, energy policy and environmental health.
"The Administration's political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists," according to the report, posted yesterday at www.politicsandscience.org. "The subjects involved span a broad range, but they share a common attribute: the beneficiaries of the scientific distortions are important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups."
White House spokesman Adam Levine said it would take time for the administration to address the specifics of the report. However, he said, "I'm hard-pressed to believe anyone would consider Congressman Waxman an objective arbiter of scientific fact."
Several prestigious scientific journals have editorialized about the Bush administration's dealings in science in recent months, including Science, Nature and the New England Journal of Medicine.
An editor at Science, for example, recently said in print that the administration was injecting politics into arenas of science "once immune to this kind of manipulation."
And the editors of the Lancet noted "growing evidence of explicit vetting of appointees to influential [scientific] panels on the basis of their political or religious opinions" and warned against "any further right-wing incursions" on those panels.
The General Accounting Office has been investigating such allegations since some in Congress asked the agency to do so in September, but it has not released any findings.
Among the purported abuses documented in the report:
• "Performance measures" used to determine the effectiveness of federally funded "abstinence only" sex education programs were altered by the administration in ways that made it easier to say the programs were effective. And information about how to use a condom -- along with scientific data showing that sex education does not lead to earlier or increased sexual activity in young people -- was removed from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site.
• In testimony before Congress, Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton omitted -- and in at least one case misstated -- federal scientists' findings that Arctic oil drilling could harm wildlife.
• The administration altered a National Cancer Institute Web site in a way that wrongly implied there was good evidence linking abortions to breast cancer.
• The Education Department circulated a memo instructing employees to remove materials from the department's Web site not "consistent with the Administration's philosophy," prompting complaints about censorship from national educational organizations.
• Bush has appointed to key scientific advisory committees numerous people with political, rather than scientific, credentials. For example, his appointee to a presidential AIDS advisory committee, marketing consultant Jerry Thacker, has described homosexuality as a "deathstyle" and referred to AIDS as the "gay plague."
A spokesman for Waxman said the report will be updated on the Web as new examples arise.
I am opposed to Bush because, as evinced by his fund-raising ability , I think that he has allowed too much power to be accumulated in a portion of the Republican party.
Our choices to let Abortion be the only determinant of who we vote for is what led to this situation.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/13/2003 10:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Public Opinion On Bush Stabilizes
War, Budget Fuel Partisan Division
By Dan Balz and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 13, 2003; Page A01
Support for President Bush on Iraq appears to have stabilized after a precipitous drop earlier this summer, but three months after the end of major combat in the Persian Gulf region, the public is again sharply divided along partisan lines over the war and other key aspects of Bush's presidency, according to a new Washington Post Poll.
The return to a polarized political climate, coming so quickly after a period of relative unity during the height of the fighting in Iraq, foreshadows a contentious reelection campaign for the president. The public mood also carries risks for the president's Democratic challengers, who are attempting to appeal to the strong anti-Bush sentiment within their party without jeopardizing the need to attract independent and swing voters in next year's general election.
A solid majority (56 percent) of those surveyed approve of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, and six in 10 said the war was worth fighting. Those evaluations had been dropping earlier in the summer, but are not significantly different than in a poll taken a month ago and suggest the downward slide may have halted, at least for now.
Bush receives poorer marks on the domestic scene, with 45 percent approving of the way he is handling the economy and 41 percent saying they approve of the way he has dealt with the federal budget, despite a deficit that will hit an estimated $455 billion this fiscal year, a record.
Only a third of those surveyed said the state of the economy was good or excellent. About the same percentage said things were getting better as said things are getting worse (32 percent vs. 29 percent), which, while not impressive, was a more optimistic appraisal than at the beginning of the year.
Asked whether they were better off since Bush became president, 17 percent said they were doing better while 25 percent said they were worse off. Bush's net negative rating on that question is the worst in any Post poll since President George H.W. Bush, whose poor ratings on the economy led to his defeat in 1992. Still, 14 percent of those surveyed said Bush bears primary responsibility for the state of the economy, with twice as many blaming the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Overall, 59 percent approve of the way Bush is handling his job. While his approval rating has dropped 18 percentage points since early April, his current level of support represents a good foundation as he begins the campaign year ahead.
Behind all these numbers is a country that views Bush and his policies through very different lenses, depending on party affiliation. Throughout much of Bush's presidency, Democrats and Republicans have been at odds in evaluating him, particularly on the economic and domestic issues, but at times of crisis have rallied behind the president on issues of national security
On the day Baghdad fell in April, when Bush's approval rating was at 77 percent, 95 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of Democrats said they approved of his handling of the presidency. In the new poll, GOP support is statistically unchanged, but Democrats have turned sharply negative in their assessments, with 64 percent saying they disapprove.
In other areas, the two parties are mirror opposites of one another, with 80 percent of Democrats disapproving of Bush's handling of the economy and 77 percent of Republicans approving. On the federal budget, 76 percent of Democrats disapprove of Bush's handling of the issue, while 71 percent of Republicans approve.
Independents give Bush positive ratings on his overall handling of the presidency and also on Iraq, but net negative ratings on the economy, taxes and the budget.
The Post poll was conducted among 1,003 randomly selected adults nationwide, who were interviewed by telephone Aug. 7-11. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The poll shows that Iraq has again become a polarizing issue, as it was in the months before the war began. Roughly two in three Democrats disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq, compared with 86 percent of Republicans who approve.
Other issues bring similarly disparate assessments of the war. A majority of Democrats say the war was not worth fighting, while majorities of Republicans and independents say it was. Roughly three in four Democrats say the level of casualties has been unacceptable, while a solid majority of Republicans say the casualties are acceptable.
On the issue that has roiled Washington this summer, whether Bush exaggerated the evidence of Iraq's pursuit or possession of weapons of mass destruction, a strong majority of Democrats say they think he overstated the case, while just as strong a majority of Republicans say he did not.
The one area where the two parties come together is in their assessment of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, who is judged by majorities of Americans to be a bad character and whose capture or death is seen as essential to declaring victory.
That view is shared by roughly three in five Republicans, Democrats and independents.
Democrats are divided over the U.S. presence in Iraq, with 56 percent supporting a continuation of troop strength there and 39 percent disapproving -- 29 percent strongly disapproving.
Iraq has touched off a growing debate among the Democratic presidential candidates, with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) charging that former Vermont governor Howard Dean's opposition to the war makes him an unacceptable nominee to challenge Bush. Lieberman also has criticized Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), claiming Kerry tried to have it both ways by supporting the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force but then criticizing Bush for rushing to war.
Lieberman has argued that Democrats need a candidate who strongly supported going to war in Iraq to attract swing voters. In the poll, independents solidly support the U.S. presence in Iraq and say the war was worth fighting, but a majority believe Bush exaggerated the threat from weapons of mass destruction, and half said the level of casualties has been too high.
Asked whether they would vote for Bush or a Democratic nominee if the election were held today, 48 percent said Bush, 40 percent said the Democrat. On that question, eight in 10 Democrats said they would support their party's nominee, and nine in 10 Republicans said Bush. Independents split 43 percent to 39 percent in Bush's favor.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/25/2003 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | | 1. The Los Angeles Times' Ron Brownstein has a hard look at President Bush-as-decision maker. "As president, Bush has been far less flexible than he was as governor of Texas. At times in Washington, when faced with incontrovertible evidence he was barreling into a dead end, he's been willing to shift direction; Bush displayed that instinct in dropping his initial resistance to a Department of Homeland Security. More often, he's dug in his heels even when circumstances seemingly demand a change. He's continued to push through massive tax cuts initially designed as a response to government surpluses even after the surpluses melted into record deficits. He's displayed an equally stubborn streak in continuing to nominate aggressively ideological judges he knows are virtually certain to provoke filibusters from Senate Democrats. Far more than in Texas, Bush in Washington equates resolve with rigidity. From that overall pattern, the easiest course for Bush in Iraq would be to stay the course, or to make only cosmetic changes. This has been his initial instinct."
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/17/2003 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | |
ean is not electable. He also is a social libertarian and an economic conservative, more like Arnold Schwarzenegger, except he is fiercely partisan. Also, now that we enforced a regime-change in Iraq, there is a need for us to finish the job and ensure Iraq and the Middle-East's future security. Lieberman is far better qualified to do this than both Dean and Bush(Although, Clark may also be a good candidate).
dlw
Republicans for Dean
By DAVID BROOKS
he results of the highly prestigious Poll of the Pollsters are in! I called eight of the best G.O.P. pollsters and strategists and asked them, on a not-for-attribution basis, if they thought Howard Dean would be easier to beat than the other major Democratic presidential candidates. Here, and I'm paraphrasing, are the results:
"Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!"
You would have thought I had asked them if Danny DeVito would be easier to beat in a one-on-one basketball game than Shaquille O'Neal. They all thought Dean would be easier to beat, notwithstanding his impressive rise. Some feared John Kerry, others John Edwards, because his personality wears well over time, and others even Bob Graham, because he can carry Florida, more than Dean. As their colleague Bill McInturff put it atop a memo on the Dean surge: "Happy Days Are Here Again (for Republicans)."
I think the pollsters are probably right, but I'd feel a lot more confident if I could find somebody who really understood the forces that are reshaping the American electorate.
Over the past few decades, the electorate has become much better educated. In 1960, only 22 percent of voters had been to college; now more than 52 percent have. As voters become more educated, they are more likely to be ideological and support the party that embraces their ideological label. As a result, the parties have polarized. There used to be many conservatives in the Democratic Party and many liberals in the Republican Party, groups that kept their parties from drifting too far off-center.
Now, there is a Democratic liberal mountain and a Republican conservative mountain. Democrats and Republicans don't just disagree on policies — they don't see the same reality, and they rarely cross over and support individual candidates from the other side. As Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego, has shown, split-ticket voting has declined steadily.
The question is whether this evolution changes the way we should think about elections. The strategists in the Intensity School say yes. They argue that it no longer makes sense to worry overmuch about the swing voters who supposedly exist in the political center because the electorate's polarization has hollowed out the center. The number of actual swing voters — people who actually switch back and forth between parties — is down to about 7 percent of the electorate. Moreover, the people in this 7 percent group have nothing in common with one another. It doesn't make sense to try to win their support because there is no coherent set of messages that will do it.
Instead, it's better to play to the people on your own mountain and get them so excited they show up at the polls. According to this line of reasoning, Dean, Mr. Intensity, is an ideal Democratic candidate.
The members of the Inclusiveness School disagree. They argue that there still are many truly independent voters, with estimates ranging from 10 to 33 percent of the electorate. Moreover, the Inclusiveness folks continue, true independents do have a coherent approach to politics. Anti-ideological, the true independents do not even listen to candidates who are partisan, strident and negative. They are what the pollster David Winston calls "solutionists"; they respond to upbeat candidates who can deliver concrete benefits: the Family and Medical Leave Act, more cops in their neighborhoods, tax rebate checks.
By this line of thinking, Dean is a terrible candidate. His partisan style drives off the persuadable folks who rarely bother to vote in primaries but who do show up once every four years for general elections.
The weight of the data, it seems to me, supports the Inclusiveness side. And the chief result of polarization is that the Democrats have become detached from antipolitical independent voters. George Bush makes many liberal Democrats froth at the mouth, but he does not have this effect on most independents. Democrats are behaving suicidally by not embracing what you might, even after yesterday's court decision, call the Schwarzenegger Option: supporting a candidate so ideologically amorphous that he can appeal to these swingers.
Which is why so many Republicans are quietly gleeful over Dean's continued momentum. It is only the dark cloud of Wesley Clark, looming on the horizon, that keeps their happiness from being complete.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/17/2003 8:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Blood Washed Heretic
I think Clark is very refreshing, but his political novice status may hurt him in the primaries...
As of right now, he's the only Dem I could vote for. Maybe a Dean/Clark ticket too, but I'm not so sure. Howard Dean is tricksy, he is...
Well, yeah, being a novice is tough.
I still think that if enough prolifers were willing to politically compromise on abortion and become potential swing-voters, you would see more bipartisan support for some changes in the abortion laws. The dems are desperate to get into power and so they would be willing to change if that got them more votes, especially with the country split 50-50 and prolifers being reliable voters.
I think the imperative is to find how to nudge the cultural wars out of nat'l politics so they don't feed into the acrimony in our gov't and set up more barriers to the sharing of the Gospel.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/28/2003 3:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Bush '04 Readying for One Democrat, Not 10
September 29, 2003
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and ADAM NAGOURNEY
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - President Bush's political advisers
have set in motion an aggressive re-election machine,
building a national network of get-out-the-vote workers and
amassing a pile of cash for a blanket advertising campaign
expected to begin around the time Democrats settle on their
candidate early next year, party officials said.
Mr. Bush's senior advisers, in interviews last week,
repeatedly described the Democratic field as unusually weak
and divided, providing an important if temporary cushion
for Mr. Bush.
Still, they said the recent sharp drop in the president's
approval ratings, the continued loss of jobs in the economy
and the problems plaguing the American occupation of Iraq
only made the political outlook more uncertain in an
election that they have long thought could be as tightly
contested as the one in 2000.
"We expect it to be a hard-fought, close election in a
country narrowly divided," said Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's
senior adviser. "When a Democratic nominee is finally
selected, our expectation is that it could be a close and
hard-fought race."
The decision to delay the start of advertising until about
the time the Democrats settle on a nominee is a rejection
of what had been a central element of President Bill
Clinton's re-election campaign. Mr. Clinton began
advertising 16 months before Election Day, in an effort to
define the election before the Republicans chose an
opponent.
Republicans said that would be a waste of money, given the
battle taking place among the Democrats. Instead, aides to
Mr. Bush said, their campaign would begin spending when a
Democratic nominee starts to emerge from the primary
battle, probably battered and very likely almost broke.
In what Republicans said was a pre-emptive effort to
nullify Democratic attacks that are likely to gain more
attention in the weeks ahead, Mr. Bush's political
operation, using elected officials and party leaders, has
begun to try to cast the Democratic candidates as
excessively negative in their attacks on a personally
popular president.
The headline on a Republican National Committee statement
attacking the Democratic presidential debate of last
Thursday night read: "Democrats So Desperate to Attack
President Bush, They Will Say Just About Anything!"
As Senator George Allen of Virginia, chairman of the
National Republican Senatorial Committee, put it in an
interview: "The president is focused on doing his job, and
the Democrats can focus on having their debates and who can
be the most shrill."
The strategy is reminiscent of what Mr. Bush's advisers did
in 2000, when they sought early on to raise questions about
Al Gore's credibility as a way of undercutting any attack
Mr. Gore sought to make as the campaign progressed.
The Bush campaign has churned ahead in raising money to
finance what Republicans said would be a television
advertising and get-out-the-vote operation unparalleled in
presidential campaigns. Campaign officials said they are
likely to report in the next few weeks that more than $80
million has been taken in since the start of re-election
fund-raising in late June, roughly $50 million of it in the
third quarter, which ends Tuesday.
Advisers to Mr. Bush said they expected the campaign to hit
its fund-raising target of $170 million by the end of the
winter. That would leave the president flush with cash and
free from the need to spend so much time doing fund-raising
events as he enters into a head-to-head matchup with
whichever Democrat captures the nomination. That would mean
that Mr. Bush would be able to avoid overtly partisan
fund-raising appearances that might undermine his effort to
portray himself as above the fray and tending to the
business of the White House.
Against this backdrop, Republican officials were disdainful
of the 10 Democrats seeking to challenge Mr. Bush. Their
harsh characterization of the field was challenged by
Democrats and independent observers as bluster, though it
seems to have fed confidence bordering on hubris in Mr.
Bush's camp when polls might suggest reason for worry.
"Each of them has relative strengths and weaknesses, but
happily for us, in each case the relative weaknesses
outweigh the relative strengths," said Ed Gillespie, the
chairman of the Republican National Committee. "They're all
Howard Dean now. They have adopted harsh, bitter, personal
attacks as their approach. They are a party of protest and
pessimism and offer no positive agenda of their own."
Like the Democrats, the Bush campaign is convinced that the
election of 2004 could turn on a relative handful of votes
in key states, as the election of 2000 did.
On Oct. 4, the campaign will bring together about 500
volunteers in Atlanta to train them in how to organize
precincts, canvass voters and get them to the polls in
Georgia. Similar events will eventually take place across
the country as the campaign moves to place organizers on
the ground in virtually every precinct in the nation.
Mindful that Mr. Bush drew under 50 percent of the vote
last time - and that there may be no third-party candidate
to drain support from the Democrats this time - Mr. Bush's
advisers have been moving to expand their appeal among
Hispanics, women and independent-minded suburbanites, and
then turn those voters out at the polls.
They also have their eyes on more narrowly defined groups,
like the estimated four million evangelical Christians who,
they say, did not vote in 2000 and are considered almost
certain to support Mr. Bush.
"This is the first time I know of that an incumbent
president has undertaken a true grass-roots effort that
penetrates precincts and neighborhoods instead of relying
entirely on image and media," said Ralph Reed, chairman of
the state Republican Party in Georgia and an adviser to the
Bush campaign.
The campaign continues to hire new staff members. It
recently settled on Terry Holt, a veteran Congressional
aide and Republican operative, as the campaign spokesman.
Members of the president's political team said they were
not overly worried about signs of deterioration in his
standing. Mr. Bush is still in a stronger position now in
the polls, they said, than either Ronald Reagan or Mr.
Clinton was at this point in his first term.
In addition, the Democratic attacks on Mr. Bush in the last
few weeks have to a large extent gone unanswered, one price
of Mr. Bush's effort to present himself as unconcerned
about what the Democrats are doing. And the political
calendar means that Mr. Bush can capitalize on an enviable
platform to rebut the Democrats in January: His State of
the Union Message is expected to be delivered right around
the time of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire
primary.
Still, uncertain about how events might shape the race over
the next year, and always remembering the fall from
political grace experienced by Mr. Bush's father, campaign
officials said they were taking nothing for granted.
"The country is closely divided, we'll have an opponent who
will run an aggressive campaign and who will be well
funded," said Ken Mehlman, Mr. Bush's campaign manager.
In a fund-raising letter last week, Mr. Mehlman asked
potential donors for money to offset what he said was more
than $400 million in commitments by donors to liberal
interest groups, a counterpoint to criticism that Mr.
Bush's fund-raising is overkill.
To a large extent, though, this is a confident campaign,
and its assuredness reflects its assessment that the
Democrats have produced a weak field. Mr. Gillespie ticked
through the candidates in an interview, offering an often
disdainful critique.
He suggested that Gen. Wesley K. Clark's popularity would
be fleeting. "We know his signature issue was the Iraq war,
and he's flopping all over the deck on that right now," Mr.
Gillespie said.
He played down the chances of Dr. Dean in a general
election and said of Representative Richard A. Gephardt of
Missouri: "Every time I see him it feels like the 1980's."
Senator John Edwards of North Carolina has "shown himself
to be fairly light as a candidate," Mr. Gillespie said, and
he was equally dismissive of Senator Bob Graham of Florida.
He said Senator John Kerry had been "pretty wishy-washy;
it's hard to tell what his policies are."
But citing the closely divided electorate and acknowledging
the potential political appeal of the leading Democrats,
Mr. Gillespie added: "Anyone who emerges as the Democratic
nominee is a viable candidate. They'll have emerged from a
group of 10 so they'll have to have done something right"
If Mr. Bush's team is guarding against hubris, it is not
without reason. Mr. Rove underestimated the strength of
Senator John McCain of Arizona in the New Hampshire primary
in 2000, contributing to Mr. Bush's defeat there and
forcing him to scramble to save the nomination. Mr. Bush
regularly tells audiences at his fund-raisers around the
country that he is "loosening up" for the campaign but that
for now he remains focused on keeping the country safe and
restoring prosperity. He still has no regular meetings with
his campaign staff, his advisers say, only quick
discussions at fund-raisers.
But Mr. Bush is acting like a candidate. He is flying
around the country, usually twice a week, largely at
taxpayer expense, for official events in states that are
strategically important to him. He typically tacks a
fund-raiser onto the trip, requiring the campaign to pick
up part of the travel tab under a formula applied to
political travel by presidents.
And his travel schedule has already given a strong
indication of the states that the White House believes will
be pivotal next year. Those include contested states he
wishes to keep in his column, like Ohio and Florida, as
well as those he most wants to wrest away from the
Democrats, like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
His advisers said they also intended to broaden the map,
competing in states that they believe are within their
reach - in particular Oregon, Minnesota, New Mexico and
Iowa.
At the moment, Mr. Bush is running well in the states he
won in 2000, freeing him to spend time and money in the
states that Mr. Gore won narrowly. There were nine states
that Mr. Gore carried by particularly thin margins, and
they represent 92 electoral votes next year. Since becoming
president, Mr. Bush has traveled to the biggest prize among
them, Pennsylvania, 22 times, more than any other state,
while visiting another, Michigan, 11 times.
"We are much more likely to pick their pockets than they
are to pick ours," Mr. Gillespie said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/politics/29CAMP.html?ex=1065798434&ei=1&en=d7dd6e2d7d4bfff0
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 10/4/2003 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
I don't have insurance and haven't had it since I got out of the military in 1987. Around here you can talk the hospitals and doctors down on their charges, which means the majority of what they are charging you is subsidising those who don't pay. As a DAV, I see socialized health care all the time and it isn't good. I was determined as possibily having sleep apnia in July, but the clinc wasn't scheduled until Jan 4, 2004. That's what you call the benefits of socialized medicine.
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for abortion. It's part of their party platform. The so called "partial birth abortion" ban has been stopped on numerous occassions by Democrats. It's a barbaric practice, but Democrats seem to like it or they wouldn't continue to stop it's ban. It seems like their discernment between good and evil is defective, so why would a christian ever contemplate voting Democrat? I wonder how many Republicans are members of the ACLU?
Hear ye, hear ye, we live in a republic, NOT a democracy. I never get to vote on any bills before Congress and the Supreme Court won't listen to the desires of the common people. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/5/2003 5:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
DLW,
I don't have insurance and haven't had it since I got out of the military in 1987. Around here you can talk the hospitals and doctors down on their charges, which means the majority of what they are charging you is subsidising those who don't pay. As a DAV, I see socialized health care all the time and it isn't good. I was determined as possibily having sleep apnia in July, but the clinc wasn't scheduled until Jan 4, 2004. That's what you call the benefits of socialized medicine.
I'd say that was the penalty for being dependent on hand-outs due to your not having insurance. Theoretically-speaking "socializing" medicine would give you more rights within the health-care process.
What is a DAV?
quote:
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for abortion. It's part of their party platform. The so called "partial birth abortion" ban has been stopped on numerous occassions by Democrats. It's a barbaric practice, but Democrats seem to like it or they wouldn't continue to stop it's ban. It seems like their discernment between good and evil is defective, so why would a christian ever contemplate voting Democrat? I wonder how many Republicans are members of the ACLU?
There are Democrat leaders that support the PBA ban and there are other political issues besides abortion. Thirty years of nat'l pro-life political activism has not acheived much. Unless we can accept the futility of politically making all abortions illegal, we won't be able to cut our losses, alter our political goals to make them more feasible.
In my professional assessment, Dems oppose all changes to abortion laws because they view compromising as stepping out onto the slippery slope of returning to the pre-Roe-V-Wade days.
If we can signal that we are not going to pursue making all abortions illegal, then we should be able to get bipartisan support for changing the legal def'n of when human life begins and numerous other measures meant to prevent as many abortions as possible(like a reform of the adoption system).
What this would entail is that we would then need to focus on changing people's hearts about abortion and getting them to deliberate on when human life begins. This would also allow us to vote on other issues and, potentially, play both parties off of each other in the pursuit of our goals...
quote:
Hear ye, hear ye, we live in a republic, NOT a democracy. I never get to vote on any bills before Congress and the Supreme Court won't listen to the desires of the common people.
Yeah, our democracy is not working well. The past thirty-years, the number voting have declined. My theory is that it is in large part because of abortion politics. That issue has crowded out so many other issues and gone no where itself. This has made many people's votes seem futile and so they have stopped voting.
Consider this, the Repubs control the Presidency, and both chambers of the legislature and all they are pursuing is the PBA ban, which will only prevent rather few abortions. Why this?
My answer:1. They, like Ronald Reagan of old, have other, higher, legislative priorities
2. They don't believe that social conservative voters will stop voting republican and so they are taking our votes for granted.
3. By taking serious measures on abortion, they would perhaps remove it as a political issue and then they may no longer be guaranteed the pro-life vote as a party.
The Republican Party is dominated by economic conservatives. There are issues of considerable tension between economic and social conservativism as illustrated by how many economic conservatives are libertine libertarians, like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Francis from the movie The 25th Hour. If we are not wiser in how we use our political capital then we will continue to let economic conservatives prevail within the party and our gov't on issues that we think are important.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/5/2003 9:09 AM (GMT -6) | | This article gives a view of the changing priorities of the Republican Party(Actually, I would argue that its main priorities are just being aired more publicly.), which points to the need for more autonomy in our politics between the two parties, which would of course also require us being willing to change our political strategy on abortion.
So do you think Arnie's groping will chang Pat Robertson's endorsement of his fellow weight-lifter?
dlw
California's New Trend: Big-Tent Republicans
October 5, 2003
By JOHN MICKLETHWAIT and ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE
SAN FRANCISCO - In the latest "Terminator" movie, Arnold
Schwarzenegger plays a robot who returns from the future to
save a grand old civilization from chaos. In Tuesday's
California recall election Mr. Schwarzenegger stands a
chance of transforming a grand old political party, not
just in California but possibly on the national stage as
well. That prospect exhilarates national Republican
leaders, even as some acknowledge that it carries risks as
well.
The election goes beyond the prospect of salvaging
Republican pride in Ronald Reagan's backyard. For many
Republicans, a Schwarzenegger victory also carries an even
more tantalizing promise with it: "rebuckling" the
Republican Sun Belt, so that a revitalized libertarian
Western wing balances the party's currently dominant
moralistic Southern wing.
A Schwarzenegger victory would be "a political earthquake
that will redefine what it means to be a Republican," said
Frank Luntz, a political consultant who has advised
Republicans from Newt Gingrich to Rudolph Giuliani. "People
who have written the party off for being too strident on
social issues will have a reason to re-examine their
opinion."
In this view, a Schwarzenegger victory would send a strong
message that the Republican Party is a tent big enough to
include a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights Hollywood superstar
who has acknowledged manhandling women and smoking
marijuana. As Vin Weber, a former member of Congress and
occasional adviser to the Bush administration, puts it,
"many people will think, `If the Republican Party is good
enough for Arnold Schwarzenegger, it is good enough for
me.' "'
But first, a majority of Californians have to vote to
recall Gov. Gray Davis on Tuesday, and Mr. Schwarzenegger
has to win the most votes among the candidates to replace
Mr. Davis. It is unclear what last-minute effect new
accusations of sexual misconduct - "behaving badly
sometimes" toward women, was how the action star put it -
would have on voters' views. But polls last week, taken
before the encounters were detailed in The Los Angeles
Times on Thursday, showed a majority still in favor of the
recall and Mr. Schwarzenegger outpacing other candidates.
If Mr. Schwarzenegger wins, his populist insurgency will
mark a twist in the strange tale of California
Republicanism. In the 1960's California was the cradle of
Western conservatism, which emphasized individual freedom
and demonized government intervention. That was in stark
contrast to the Republicanism of East Coast patricians like
Nelson A. Rockefeller and post-ideological managers like
Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Orange County was a breeding ground for right-wing groups.
The John Birch Society was founded in Massachusetts but
flourished most luxuriantly in Southern California. The
Australian-born Dr. Fred Schwarz established a school of
anti-Communism that attracted thousands of local students
(many excused from regular classes by their school boards).
Freedom Forum shops sold books with titles like "You Can
Trust the Communists (to Be Communists)."
The new creed soon found its hero in Barry M. Goldwater,
who may have hailed from Arizona, but whose message of
individualism found fervent supporters in the sprawl of Los
Angeles and Orange County. Though President Lyndon B.
Johnson easily carried California in 1964, many of the
state's suburbanites responded rapturously when Goldwater
proclaimed that the country would be "better off if we
could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float
out to sea." The Reagan Revolution was born.
Although Ronald Reagan was a more complicated figure than
Republican mythology holds, he persuaded the faithful he
was the real thing: a Western conservative (and frequent
speaker at Schwarz's anti-Communism school) who had no
doubts that government and taxes were the enemy.
By the mid-1970's California Republicanism had blossomed
into a broader movement. In 1978, it produced the anti-tax
Proposition 13 - a fervent revolution against the political
establishment. It had gained an intellectual edge, with
Hoover Institution analysts swapping ideas with
Thatcherites in London. Meanwhile, the party consolidated
its grip, holding the governorship from 1982 to 1998, first
with George Deukmejian and then Pete Wilson.
The state's Republicans began to lose their edge when they
were caught up in the Dixification of their party. They
adopted race and religion issues in a state where neither
had played much of a role in politics. In 1994, Governor
Wilson, facing a re-election battle, endorsed Proposition
187, which called for withdrawing benefits from illegal
immigrants. He won, but alienated the state's
fastest-growing minority. Mr. Reagan used to win close to
half the Latino vote; in 1998, the Republican candidate for
governor, Dan Lungren, drew only 17 percent.
Meanwhile, the Christian right strengthened its grip on the
party. Mr. Reagan was an easygoing divorced actor who, as
governor, signed the country's most liberal abortion law.
(His subsequent alliance with the Christian right was the
price he paid for the support of his party's Southern wing
for his presidential run.) Both Governors Deukmejian and
Wilson were pro-choice (as was Goldwater). Since then the
party has nominated anti-abortion gubernatorial candidates.
The 2002 state Republican convention in Anaheim reflected
the change. Elderly white faces packed the rostrum. The
only sign of demographic diversity was a James Brown song,
played when Bill Simon Jr. somewhat awkwardly entered the
hall.
Today California is arguably the most Democratic state,
with the party controlling both houses of the Legislature
and every statewide office.
Even now that providence has delivered them the recall,
some Republicans are uneasy about Mr. Schwarzenegger.
Despite his party's pleas to step aside, Tom McClintock, a
conservative state senator, remained in the race as of
Friday, siphoning votes from Mr. Schwarzenegger.
As for the problems that await a Governor Schwarzenegger,
these are so great that a Republican governor in another
state privately worried, "This might be a better race for
us to lose." If Mr. Schwarzenegger raises taxes to resolve
a budget crisis, it will infuriate a right wing that
already loathes his social views. But he can't cut services
without alienating many ordinary voters.
Yet it would be foolish to underestimate the potential
national implications of a Republican victory in a state
with 54 electoral votes. In the 2002 governor's race, Karl
Rove, George Bush's political adviser, urged Republicans to
nominate Richard J. Riordan, the former mayor of Los
Angeles, whose liberal social views were in line with
suburban California's. The recall has provided Mr. Rove
with a socially liberal candidate with infinitely more star
power.
Next year's Republican National Convention in New York
would surely give a hero's reception to the slayer of Gray
Davis. And it would be a huge blow to the Democrats'
morale, at a time when their fortunes seem on the upswing,
forcing them to devote more resources to defending a state
they would like to take for granted.
"If the Republicans drop their uptight social agenda,"
predicted Edward H. Crane, head of the Cato Institute,
"they will flourish in California." No wonder Senator Orrin
G. Hatch, the Utah Republican, is pushing a constitutional
amendment to allow foreign-born citizens to run for
president.
John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, who write for The
Economist and who covered California for the magazine, are
writing a book about American conservatism, to be published
next year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/weekinreview/05WOOL.html?ex=1066380536&ei=1&en=b4a150e796f6aaeb | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 10/5/2003 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
Maybe you need to be a little more aware before you pass judgment. A DAV is one who has a military service connected disability. It isn't a hand out, thank you very much. But, it does mean seeing the VA hospitals and clinics at work, first hand.
I find your arguments for voting Democrat to be less than convincing.quote:
Joseph Lieberman's Senate Voting Record
1999 Support Roe v. Wade right to abortion (Senate Vote 337) Y
1998 Ban "partial-birth" abortions (Senate Vote 277) N
1998 Ban human cloning (Senate Vote 10) N
1997 Ban "partial birth" abortions (Senate Vote 71) N
1996 Ban most partial-birth abortions (Senate Vote 301) N
1995 Ban an abortion technique that opponents call 'partial birth' abortion (Senate Vote 596) N
1993 Allow federal abortion funding (Senate Vote 290) Y
1993 Support president's right to lift military gay ban (Senate Vote 9) Y
1991 Raise senators' pay and ban honoraria (Senate Vote 133) Y
1990 Oppose requiring parental notice for minors' abortions (Senate Vote 266) Y source
I can see Lieberman is no friend of the unborn, but he doesn't have a problem with sodomites!quote:
Senator Joseph Lieberman's voting record on Infanticide, Pornography, and "Gay-Rights" is a disgrace to the Orthodox Jewish community Beware of the Lieberman "Trap"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/5/2003 7:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
DLW,
Maybe you need to be a little more aware before you pass judgment. A DAV is one who has a military service connected disability. It isn't a hand out, thank you very much. But, it does mean seeing the VA hospitals and clinics at work, first hand.
I wasn't passing judgment, I just made a poor word-choice in typing hand-out, I'm sorry .
quote:
I find your arguments for voting Democrat to be less than convincing.quote:
Joseph Lieberman's Senate Voting Record
1999 Support Roe v. Wade right to abortion (Senate Vote 337) Y
1998 Ban "partial-birth" abortions (Senate Vote 277) N
1998 Ban human cloning (Senate Vote 10) N
1997 Ban "partial birth" abortions (Senate Vote 71) N
1996 Ban most partial-birth abortions (Senate Vote 301) N
1995 Ban an abortion technique that opponents call 'partial birth' abortion (Senate Vote 596) N
1993 Allow federal abortion funding (Senate Vote 290) Y
1993 Support president's right to lift military gay ban (Senate Vote 9) Y
1991 Raise senators' pay and ban honoraria (Senate Vote 133) Y
1990 Oppose requiring parental notice for minors' abortions (Senate Vote 266) Y source
I can see Lieberman is no friend of the unborn, but he doesn't have a problem with sodomites![quote]Senator Joseph Lieberman's voting record on Infanticide, Pornography, and "Gay-Rights" is a disgrace to the Orthodox Jewish community Beware of the Lieberman "Trap"
Yeah, I agree he is sub-optimal. My theory, and it obviously hasn't been tested, is that if enough pro-lifers were willing to chang their political strategy on abortion and promise to support the Dems candidate that will embrace their compromise position, then that could get a Dems candidate(s) to break from the pack.
I think Lieberman may be one possible candidate, but at this point this is all purely hypothetical...
The thing is that to be anyone in the Dems party nowadays you have to be rather strongly pro-choice. I think this ideological solidarity is meant to confront the ideological solidarity of pro-lifers in seeking to make almost all abortions illegal again.
If pro-lifers changed goals to avoid going after pro-choicers sacred cow(by trying to make all abortions illegal) then this wouldn't inspire such ideological solidarity on the part of the Dem party. This would make getting bipartisan support easier and that would help to ensure that real changes in abortion law could be made as well as a host of other changes meant to prevent abortions...
So that's my pitch.
Given how little success has been achieved by 30 years of political prolife activism, I think its worth reconsidering our tactics...
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 10/6/2003 1:06 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
I didn't really think you meant to be offensive, you just wrote from what you assumed and the assumption was wrong. 
I don't really think por-life or pro-choice (where did we ever come up with that? It's pro-death!) as much as it is liberalism vs conservatism. Liberalism is evident in many areas of our society and is probably fed through the various media. The values we hold dear are shaped to a large degree by the media. Our view toward the practice of sodomy/pornography/infanticide has been redefined by the media and the media is mostly Democrat.
Of course, that doesn't mean a Democrat will always vote the liberal party line on every issue. There are a few conservative Democrats and several who know the hot issues to stay away from, like gun control issues and Max Sandlin (D) from East Texas. Max didn't vote for new gun controls, because he knew a neighboring district had voted out an incumbant over gun control issues. That doesn't mean Max Sandlin is a conservative, he just wants to stay in office. BTW, Lieberman is in favor of new gun controls which is another reason to reject him.
Tax increases are kind of like banana pudding to a Democrat, they never met one they didn't like! 
They also seem to have a problem with national security and funding that which would help ensure our security as a nation. 
They also have some odd ideas on education. They think more money and smaller class size will make a difference in the education of children. In fact, the greater amount of money is spent in the worst performing states and I never saw a class size of less than 30 when I was in public school. You may have noticed that I have the ability to read what you have posted, which is more than a lot of today's high school grads can say. (I pre-tested a HS grad before sending him to the Military Enlistment Physical and Testing Center in Shreveport who scored 5% when 20% was all he needed to enlist. He couldn't even read the questions!)
Do you want a few more soap boxes about welfare, the "homeless", WFA (waste, fraud and abuse) and pork barrel spending? | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/6/2003 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
I don't really think por-life or pro-choice (where did we ever come up with that? It's pro-death!) as much as it is liberalism vs conservatism. Liberalism is evident in many areas of our society and is probably fed through the various media. The values we hold dear are shaped to a large degree by the media. Our view toward the practice of sodomy/pornography/infanticide has been redefined by the media and the media is mostly Democrat.
I would disagree, the media is definitely centrist. What is true that they are largely not evangelical Christian.
quote:
Of course, that doesn't mean a Democrat will always vote the liberal party line on every issue. There are a few conservative Democrats and several who know the hot issues to stay away from, like gun control issues and Max Sandlin (D) from East Texas. Max didn't vote for new gun controls, because he knew a neighboring district had voted out an incumbant over gun control issues. That doesn't mean Max Sandlin is a conservative, he just wants to stay in office. BTW, Lieberman is in favor of new gun controls which is another reason to reject him.
quote:
Tax increases are kind of like banana pudding to a Democrat, they never met one they didn't like!
Repubs have had to sponsor tax-increases too. Lately, Dems have beenn the party of fiscal discipline, let's balance the budget. This matters cuz when you have deficits you have to issue debt and that is just future taxes for others... To say nothing of how it hurts our nation's credit and takes up capital that could be used otherwise...
quote:
They also seem to have a problem with national security and funding that which would help ensure our security as a nation.
They also have some odd ideas on education. They think more money and smaller class size will make a difference in the education of children. In fact, the greater amount of money is spent in the worst performing states and I never saw a class size of less than 30 when I was in public school. You may have noticed that I have the ability to read what you have posted, which is more than a lot of today's high school grads can say. (I pre-tested a HS grad before sending him to the Military Enlistment Physical and Testing Center in Shreveport who scored 5% when 20% was all he needed to enlist. He couldn't even read the questions!)
Yeah, public schools do have problems, they don't really teach the moral values people need today and that are necessary to motivate people to work hard to learn to read and write and think to the best of their ability.
quote:
Do you want a few more soap boxes about welfare, the "homeless", WFA (waste, fraud and abuse) and pork barrel spending?
Well, I would counsel you to read a very good book by a Christian Economist named Rebecca Blank titled "It takes a Nation" that takes serious social conservative objections to welfare.
Our country spends alot more of its discretionary income on the military and corporate welfare than many other things. I have nothing against the military, but I believe in the importance of balance of power and preventing any group from getting too much political power and that's what has happened to the Repubs.
When you barely get elected, you do not pursue a super-conservative agenda as George Bush has. If it weren't for the post-9-11 trust he squandered, he would be up to his neck right now.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 10/6/2003 5:57 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
Centrist, not hardly. More like anti-American Marxist. Haven't you ever noticed their pro-Muslim, anti-Israel, anti-American stances?
EDIT: Surely you aren't thinking the news media is the only media I was referring to? The re-shaping of America has come mainly through television and motion pictures. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/7/2003 4:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
DLW,
Centrist, not hardly. More like anti-American Marxist. Haven't you ever noticed their pro-Muslim, anti-Israel, anti-American stances?
EDIT: Surely you aren't thinking the news media is the only media I was referring to? The re-shaping of America has come mainly through television and motion pictures.
Yes, I have problems with Hollywood and much of what is on TV...
But voting always voting Republican even if they aren't likely to make too much progress legally on abortion isn't the way to change that.
dlw | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 10/7/2003 3:22 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
I thought you might like this from Yahoo News concerning Democrat Wesley Clark.quote:
Donnie Fowler left the three-week-old campaign rather than take over the political operation for Clark, whose early performance has been plagued by missteps, including his reversal over whether he would have supported a congressional resolution authorizing war in Iraq. source
It seems like the Clintonites are worming their way into the Clark campaign. But, I don't think that is the reason for his reversal. Maybe CNN quit paying him to give "expert" coverage? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 10/8/2003 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
Did the California vote yesterday tell you anything about the way people feel about Democrat politics? | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/9/2003 7:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul,
To be a politician is to have to compromise one's personal views and along lines with what will appeal with your party and the general voters.
This is not pleasant and there surely are things that shouldn't be compromised on, but to be able to accomplish anything one first has to get elected.
Davis should have stepped down when the move for a recall was successful. He could have thrown his weight behind Bustamente, anything but let Ahnold become gov'r.
And, there was much deserved antipathy against Davis, which doesn't reflect the entirety of the Dem party.
My point is to neither baptize either party but to stress the need for us to develop habits of political deliberation and autonomy whereby we can be not tied to either party and be able to play them off each other wrt making moderate gains on issues we care about(and this would, in turn, make the overall political system more competitive than it has become over the past thirty years thanks to us voting reliably and unthinkingly republican because of abortion politics.).
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| 54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:38 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|