Quote of the day
A. C. Kleinheider on Bush being a conservative:
What’s the case for Bush as more conservative? His folksy affectations, his dropping the Lord’s name every now and again, a court appointment or two, a bit of a tax rebate? He has both houses of Congress. This is the conservative revolution? Please.
Yeah, for a bit there, I’d vote straight Republican. It’s true. My reasoning was, that even though there were some bad aspects to the party (like catering to the religious right), the positives outweighed that more so than the positives outweighed the negatives for Democrats. But with the Bush administration, all the positives went away except for tax cuts. And the positives I mean are pro-gun, small government, cut spending, fiscal conservatism, and more. And this administration has pretty much shot all those in the ass. So, let me be clear:
If the Democrats actually get their collective shit together over this whole gun issue (which they appear to be trying to do), I’ll vote for them because the parties are the same except for that and taxes. And I’d pay more in taxes for gun rights guarantees. Or, as I said before, I’m willing to buy my freedom.
Update: But it’d have to be some pretty damn convincing evidence that they were really pro-gun. As soon as they mention the AWB (and they will) it’d be over.
Update 2: Speaking of Republicans and guns, I guess it’s more of a regional thing than a party line toeing sort of thing. Feh.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:35 am
FOr me it would take a pretty public rebuking of their anti gun leadership. I don’t expect them to kick Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Boxer, Lautenberg, Clinton, Durbin, Kohl, Levin, Mikulski, Morray, Nelson, Obama, Reed, Sarbanes (or whoever replaces him, assuming Black Republican Michael Steel can’t win Maryland) and Stabenow out of the party, but they will pretty much need to excommunicate the Sarah Bradys and Tom Diazs of the world before I buy it.
Oh yeah, and be willing to nominate Russ Feingold (very pro RKBA) or Joe Leibermann (Less pro RKBA – I think he is genuinly misingormed about the issue – but very pro defense).
December 20th, 2005 at 10:54 am
True, they’d have a lot cleaning house to do and that’s about what it’d take for me.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:56 am
If the Democrats ever get their collective shit together over this whole gun issue, it will be on the anti-freedom side. The party of Frisco, New York, Chicago and DC simply cannot afford to be pro-gun, and would implode if it tried.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:31 am
C’mon, Unc.
You’re trying to read into it what you’d like to see. This is a rehash of that study from 2 years ago. “How can we fool people into voting for us, by appearing to stand for something we don’t.”
Just look at what they, themselves are saying: “”On gun rights, we’ve allowed the Republicans to paint us in a way that just doesn’t represent our values,” said Damien LaVera, a Dean spokesman,”
Now, you and I both know that not only HAVEN’T the (R)s painted them in any way (in fact, been downright nice about it), but that the “values” the Dean spokesman is touting have to do with “sporting purpose” and “pistol grips” and “spray firing from the hip” and all the regular (D) talking points. Notice the Dean spokesperson didn’t say WHAT values have supposedly been misrepresented. Because they’re talking out their ass. It’s a “Swiftboating”. How DARE you use facts and history to show that you’re right! Now the Democrats use “swiftboating” as an attack verb – without noting, of course, that the Swift Vets have yet to be substantially proven wrong, and on 5? major points, forced Kerry to “revise” his previous story/comments/history.
This is the usual whining by the (D)s, when they are held accountable for their actions/policies. In short *nothing has changed*. They haven’t changed their views. I’m sure that the (D)’s out west, or at least some of them *do* believe in gun rights. But the nationals haven’t. And instead of having a true “is this what we should believe in” sort of moment, instead, it’s a typical (D) “Let’s find a way to fool them, and screw ’em”. At least, from the national side. The local guys I’m sure are saying “This is killing us!”
Which is why I can’t vote for any (D). I’d be hard pressed to vote for Zell right now if he were running. Because, by and large, that means that Boxer, Pelosi, Reid, etc. move into senior/majority positions.
When I see the (D)’s actually *fracturing* over gun rights, then I might believe that a change is in order. In the meantime, the onus is on those western (D)s, who *do* believe in gun rights, to do what it takes to get new people in leadership positions, and not just simply try and win elections. Which means they might LOSE lots more in the interim.
Somewhat of a good comparison is the purging of the Religious Right from the Republican ranks in the late 80s/early 90s. Of course, the Media (ignoring the role of the media in this whole business, from the softening of the (D)s position, to covering the hypocrisy of the politicians, to continually painting the (R)s as dangerous) still reports that the RR runs the republican party. But that’s not true. Believe me, I know a lot of the RR in *SC*, who are upset about how they don’t set policy like they used to. There are active, involved debates on abortion inside the (R) tent. Try and have one at a Democractic meet up. Wear padding, you’ll need it. 🙂
That’s not to say that I like the Republican party – I’m in the South Park position. I don’t like Republicans. But I really f**cking hate Democrats. And there *are* some good (D)s out there. But as long as they’re with the party that denies the existance of the 2nd amendment, I can’t support them.
And we, as online gun resources, don’t need to get wishy-washy over meaningless words and whining. The Democrats have made their bed, tossed sand and water into it, then thrown fleas and bedbugs under the sheets. Let them lie in it – until they actually, unequvocally, and vocally *change their mind*.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:34 am
edit:
Of course, the Media (ignoring the role of the media in this whole business, from the softening of the (D)s position, to covering the hypocrisy of the politicians, to continually painting the (R)s as dangerous)
Continuing that – “(R)s as dangerous, religious driven nutcases, is a substantial omission, but one made for the sake of space. Just note how fast they are to trumpet *this* story, and not actually use, you know, (D) track record and ask them about it)
December 20th, 2005 at 11:44 am
I understand addison but my fear is that the Rs have also fooled people into voting for us, by appearing to stand for something we don’t. Small government, anyone?
As I said, it would take a lot for the Ds to prove to me that they mean it and that would likely involve what Xrlq said of getting rid of the CA, IL and NY factions. I don’t see that happening.
Now that I think about it, as long as Chuck Schumer has any potential to be a major player, I probably wouldn’t’ be able to bring myself to do it.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Unc:
While of course I share your dismay for the remmnants of Reaganism… The Republicans aren’t currently running around making a big deal about their desires for smaller government, and that they’re just MISUNDERSTOOD, and really, they want small government.
That’s the level of dishonesty that quite frankly, I just can’t deal with. (Nor Ds I can respect, like Zell.) Bush had his “compassionate conservatism”, which meant, this ain’t your fathers Reagan Party. (no pun intended).
And that’s the problem. With the national, leaders so far left, the lesser of 2 evils is almost always the (R). Of course, I’ve “wasted” my vote a number of times on (L) and other third party candidates. I’m sure I’ll be forced to do so more in the future.
“How the Democratic Party can get your vote” Funny thing. Notice my comment is the very last one, and nobody ever answered.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
I guess as a “liberal” I’ll have to weigh in on this.
Right now, it looks like at the national level, we have a choice between the party of Greed, Corruption and Incompetence vs. the party of Ambiguity, Equivocation and Impotence.
As Clinton said, most folks in our culture will go for “strong and wrong,” over “weak and not clearly right.” (OK, the description of Democrats offered my embellishments)
I had always been registered as an independent until 2003, when I registered as a Democrat for the first time. The primary reason for doing this is so I could vote in the Democratic presidential primary. New York, unfortunately, requires you to vote in your parties own primary. Bloomberg took it to the people in the same year with a ballot initiative to change that law. It narrowly failed. I hope he brings it up again this term. Anyway, I figured I could have a hell of a lot more impact by influencing who would represent the opposition party. Also, I have never personally liked any member of the Bush family. To me, they are just dripping with Old World, upper class entitlement mentality. I don’t buy the cowboy bullshit. GW might have the same tastes as many red staters, but in his world-view, his right to power has everything to do with who he is, not what he has done. I think he is a spoiled pansy that couldn’t “lead” his way out of a paper bag. His business record is abyssmal. However, he has done a much better job than me of picking his parents – that is, if power and influence are the only measures of success in life.
I’m still a “Democrat” because I believe that something might emerge from the grass roots side that more closely approaches my ideology and worldview- pro free market/trade, but not pro-corporation, don’t mind taxes but I want a LOT of control over how my “membership dues” are spent (once every four years is not enough).
Then again, I have happily voted for Republicans in the past, and have only regretted the choice once (Bill Frist -what a useless prick). I have ZERO loyalty to any party. Why the hell should I care? This isn’t baseball where loyalty counts for something.
The biggest things I’m looking for are:
1) Rule of law, NOT the rule of individuals.
2) Facilitate a level economic playing field. Workers, small business, and corporations are all equal participants in the game. They may have inherent structural advantages, but the government should not unfairly burden or boost any class of player. No preferential subsidies, tax breaks or zoning variances for Wal-mart that aren’t equally available to mom & pop. Unions should quit trying to protect their poorest performers, and instead behave more like a corporation that is leveraging the collective “purchasing power” of their membership. Their members purchase paychecks with skilled or unskilled labor. When they organize to get favorable terms, they are doing the same thing that Wal-mart does when it uses its purchasing power to drive down supplier prices. No more farm subdidies. You get the picture.
3) Individual citizens recognized as having more rights as an entity than corporations. Our corporations have more than enough protections to keep them vital and competitive. Our bankruptcy culture and “at will” hiring/firing in particular ensures that corporations don’t have to be unnecessarily risk averse. They’re just getting greedy right now.
4) Focus on transparency in government, corporate governance and other issues that affect us as taxpayers, consumers and citizens. I believe that the free market and democracy both work better when the “customer” has as much information about the “product” as possible. Caveat emptor is not a policy that furthers liberty in the long run.
5) The principle of subsidiarity, e.g. nothing should be done by a larger, more complex, CENTRALIZED organization which can be done as well by a smaller, simpler, LOCALIZED organization. Plenty of liberals have bumper stickers that say “think globally, act locally” but many still cling to an antiquated and discredited (in my view) idea about the potential of a strong central government. Many conservatives cling to the myth of self-sufficiency without understanding just how dependent they are on a vast shared infrastructure. Liberals, on the other hand, talk about “empowerment,” but fail to recognize that empowerment implies distributed authority, which means DIMINISHING the size of the federal government and allowing variation on basic themes (the “must haves” to ensure a level playing field) at the local level. One size does not fit all. Anyone that purports that is automatically disqualified from receiving my vote. I would also like to see fewer laws at the federal level, with more consistent and certain enforcement. No unfunded mandates. On the other hand, we must all reecognize that there are some systemic issues that require some level of federal “oversight.” Defense, transportation and commerce are obvious, but the environment is no less important.
Would I cut federal spending? Damned straight. Get rid of subsidies, National Endowment for the Arts (we’ll make up for it), Public Broadcasting (they don’t need it), High tech defense spending for unnecessary and already obsolete toys (worth billions), all local pork (whores). As for the pork, I would look for a law that absolutely requires that no state to receive less in federal funds than they provided through their income taxes. Why should New York fund Arkansas? This is the 21st century for pete’s sake, they don’t need hand-outs.
6) Taxes may be a huge pain in the ass, but they are inevitable. Let’s talk seriously about a long term strategy for tax reform. I love the idea of a consumption tax, but the transition costs, even if phased, make it very unlikely IMHO. I also absolutely reject the idea that wage earner income should ever be taxed at a higher rate than investment income. It REALLY pisses me off that Dick Cheney madea lot more money than I did last year and paid a smaller % of his income in taxes. The AMT is unsustainable. Unfortunately, the anti-tax Republicans aren’t lifting a finger to do anything about it. They would rather concentrate on investment income. Excuse me, but that sucks. No vote from me until that changes. We can’t all be investors. We need people to clean our teeth and clean our toilets and do our taxes. Some of us go in to debt to get an education for a professional job. Don’t tell us that we should have been born rich, or concentrated on learning how to play the stock market. Whatever happened to the Protestant work ethic? It seems to have been replaced with the “see if I can get mine and fuck all the poor saps that work for a living” ethic.
7) Do SOMETHING about health care. I really don’t know the solution, but I really don’t like my coverage being tied to employment. My employer offers a decent package, but we seem to change providers frequently, and every change brings reduced coverage. Also, my parents are seeing their coverage reduced. It’s no fun being in mortal fear of losing your job – it hurts productivity and does not encourage people to take risks (like moving to another career or trying their own business). The fear I have has nothing to do with the interruption of income, it’s all about health care. One ill timed catastrophe could ruin us economically and we’re pretty well off. I know several people who have suffered because of the cost of coverage or lack thereof. If we’re going to have a dynamic, adaptive economy where employability is far more important than job security, then we need health security to compensate. Then again, I can’t think of one solution that won’t result in reduced choice and increased cost. I’m willing to live with both to get the worry off my back. Younger folks who haven’t felt the possibility of catastrophic or chronic ailments breathing down their neck will feel differently. Tough issue.
8) Reduce the fucking defecit!!! We can’t keep wishing this away with happy talk about how debt is good. We may disagree on how big a problem our defecit is, but it’s clearly a problem.
9) Get serious about campaign financing reform. The system is virtually irredeemable at this point. At least, it is at the national level. Maybe the only way to “fix” the problems we face is to build from the grass roots up. That’s why we all have an interest in curtailing the Bushistas – they are driving, perhaps inevitably, toward an imperial phase for the U.S. Perhaps that’s just meant to be. But I think the U.S. is less well suited to the role of empire than other world actors like China, and we won’t hold the role for long. I really worry about us slipping very far, very fast in the coming decades. We need to get our shit together.
Geez, I guess I’m asking too much.
Guess I’ll settle for someone that doesn’t make me want to puke every time they open their mouth. So far, there’s a dearth of such candidates at the national level.
If the Republicans run McCain in 2008, they’ll win the presidency (although I’ll write in Penn Gillette). Anyone else, and I don’t know what will happen.
Third party anyone?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Wow, that’s a lot. Third parties are doomed due to laws designed to benefit the major parties. And third parties get almost zero press coverage (unless they’re Nader). The fact is, the party machine is too big and can’t be fixed.
McCain? I hope not.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Me too (probably for different reasons), but he could make the case that he’s a crossover candidate.
The Bush effect will really influence the 2008 election. Assuming his image isn’t miraculously reformed in the next three years, it will be interesting to see what emerges as the dominant theme for Republicans.
No matter how much they protest, the national Dems will organize around “not Bush” once again as their theme. Many valiant attempts will be made to paint a compelling vision about where we need to go as a country, but I don’t think the party is organized enough to come up with something simple, clear and direct. This doesn’t just hurt the democrats, it hurts the country.
There’s a slim chance that the Democrats might make some gains in 2006. If they were able to regain control of key committees and work with moderate Republicans whose seats were at risk, then they might get some traction.
I predict Republican wins in both 2006 and 2008. They’ll maintain a slim majority. That’s why I’m far more interested in who their candidates will be.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
Uncle:
And the environment, and social justice, and women’s rights, and civil rights, and separation of church and state, etc., etc., etc.
I’m sorry, but I’m pretty tired of the whole “both parties are essentially the same” bullshit. It’s that type of logic that allows the Perots and Naders of the world to blow elections. About the only major ways in which the parties are the same is that both are corrupt and beholden to large corporate interests, and are more concerned with re-election than about just about anything else. But I challenge you to list three hot-button socio-political issues that the average American knows and cares about where the Democrats and Republicans don’t have substantially different positions.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
And I’m pretty tired of you saying women’s rights when you mean abortion. Why not say it? 😉
Seriously, I probably should have said the parties are the same on issues I find to be more important.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
Which are what, exactly? No issues at all? Or by “the same” do you mean “unsatisfactory,” as in “Democrats want to take away all my guns, but Republicans do a less than 100% perfect job of defending the RKBA at every turn, potato, potahto?”
December 20th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Doesn’t fear of rejection have a lot to do with this? People want to be liked. They want to be popular. Isn’t that why people don’t vote? They do not want to be wrong they do not want to be part of the problem. So when whichever President is vilified they can say “I did not vote for him”. Maybe we should stop vilifying the people that represent us. Be more like a Coach, “OK, that was a bonehead play and you can do better.” As long as politics is a bloodsport at this level people will not vote.
Thanks to Ross Perot and Lydon LaRouche and a minor credit to Ralph Nader, any third party attempt is null. Which is a great loss to this nation. I give Perot the credit for much of where we are now.
Each party is so good at what they do we now have a perfect 50/50 balance. I think the technical term is a CF.
The race for President in 2008 I would like to see is George Allen versus Hillary Clinton. May the best man win.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Bingo. As for the Rs and guns, let’s see:
Import ban
The AWB
The renewal of the ban passing the senate (thank goodness it was killed)
The prez supporting the AWB
1986 Hughes Amendment
Did I leave anything out? That’s significantly less than 100% in my book.
One good thing, the JD recognizing an individual right.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
But that’s hardly the same. By that logic, you might as well argue that Republicans are “the same” as Marxists since Marxists want to take away everything, but Republicans don’t want to end all taxes, either. It’s a total lack of perspective.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:16 am
Uncle:
Because it’s not all I mean. Yeah, it’s a big one, but access to contraception is another, and equal pay for equal work is another.
And “I only care about guns and taxes” would make a great blog subhead. 🙂
December 21st, 2005 at 10:03 am
So, you’re telling me that the Republican party platform includes banning access to contraception and enforces paying women less?
December 21st, 2005 at 5:32 pm
No, I’m telling you that the Republican party is the one far more likely to push for laws that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions citing “moral issues,” and has historically opposed pretty much any sort of equal rights protections for women.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:32 pm
And the “religious values” wing of the GOP wants all the women married, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen anyway.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:38 pm
There’s a right to equal pay?
You seem overly concerned by the five percenters, if you ask me.