Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

bizarre ideological gumbo that it is today?

Hey, gumbo is tasty and hearty, not watered down and astringent.  As a person of LA descent, I take offense.

Patriot Act was prior to 3/03
So was NSA domestic spying.

The cauldron's various eddies spew forth atrocities hither and yon. Iraq is just a big piece of gristle.

How we got to Iraq is the 'eye of Newt.'

etc.

Right Here

Freakout Jackson wrote:

Right Here

The problem is that conservative ideology doesn't work for governing a large, diverse country for a long time.

Conservatives rail on the sidelines against government excesses, and can even sweep into power and cut out the most wasteful spending, but then what are they supposed to do?

The public wants "small government" but doesn't want small roads and bridges, small schools, small hospitals, small military, and small social security checks.

If they want to stay in power they have to give into the public's will.

The problem is that they've been able to do it all without taxation. Sadly, the only thing that will stop it is when the huge debt starts to really hurt the economy.

Hank Rearden wrote:

Beagle/Bro. wrote:

Patriot Act was prior to 3/03
So was NSA domestic spying.

Sure, and I agree with neither.  However, pragmatically, it was 3/03 that killed them, and will haunt them for years to come.  The other two had (and likely still have) a fair amount of support.

I'm not saying such support is a good thing.  It just is.

Fair enough. I'm hopeful Kev's fave from VT Sen. Leahy can put the words of newly elected Sen. Joh Tester in action.

From debate with incumbent Burns:

Burns: He'd weaken the Patriot Act.
Tester: I don't want to weaken it - I want to REPEAL it.

Last edited by Beagle/Bro. (2006-11-10 3:01 pm)

after-life wrote:

The problem is that conservative ideology doesn't work for governing a large, diverse country for a long time.

Conservatives rail on the sidelines against government excesses, and can even sweep into power and cut out the most wasteful spending, but then what are they supposed to do?

The public wants "small government" but doesn't want small roads and bridges, small schools, small hospitals, small military, and small social security checks.

If they want to stay in power they have to give into the public's will.

The problem is that they've been able to do it all without taxation. Sadly, the only thing that will stop it is when the huge debt starts to really hurt the economy.

It can be done with low taxation, but spending must be kept in check. The problem with the Republicans in Congress is that they ran and won on conservative issues, but then most turned liberal and forgot those who put them in power.

Last edited by Ra (2006-11-10 10:07 pm)

A real problem for future governance is that the republicans have sold a very, very happy, happy, joy, joy lie that government can be had for free or close to it. In the guise of an economic theory the republicans have been bribing the electorate to support them by following a public pleasing but completely irresponsible fiscal "plan". Then turning around and pointing a finger at the Dems and yelling they want to raise your taxes.
The republicans have taken the easy way. The hard part of governing has always been the balance between services and the taxes people were willing to pay for those services. The right has decided thats just too much work and have convinced much of the public that the basic economics of responsibility just stopped applying sometime in the year 2000.

Did they really get "their asses handed to them?" I mean, I am by far no Rebuplican, but when the tables went the other way and Bush kept the presidency by that thin margin that was slightly larger than half the votes and boasted about the "mandate," a lot of people were quick to point out that it was no such thing, given how narrow the margin was.

If anything the election results were a thin margin of opportunity for Democrats.

StaticAge wrote:

Did they really get "their asses handed to them?" I mean, I am by far no Rebuplican, but when the tables went the other way and Bush kept the presidency by that thin margin that was slightly larger than half the votes and boasted about the "mandate," a lot of people were quick to point out that it was no such thing, given how narrow the margin was.

If anything the election results were a thin margin of opportunity for Democrats.

Oh, you're definitely right. And actually I've refrained from pointing out just how narrow a victory it was, which is quite horrifying when you think about how freaking messed-up things have gotten.

However, it can't be denied that losing control of both houses of Congress was a disastrous loss for the Repubsters.

Pariah wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

Did they really get "their asses handed to them?" I mean, I am by far no Rebuplican, but when the tables went the other way and Bush kept the presidency by that thin margin that was slightly larger than half the votes and boasted about the "mandate," a lot of people were quick to point out that it was no such thing, given how narrow the margin was.

If anything the election results were a thin margin of opportunity for Democrats.

I think its fair to say the Repubs got there asses handed to them. With Bush it was one single very narrow election. Last tuesday we saw dozens and dozens of rep congressmen, senators and governors loss elections all across the country. Not one incumbent Democrat was defeated by a republican challenger. Its not so much the margins that makes this an ass kicking, altho some defeats were really bad (Santorum). What makes it an ass kicking is the broad geographic range of the republican loses.
The Dems have a mandate but it's a dangerous one for them. This election was all about people realising how smurfed up the republicans have become and I think a lot of voters went Democrat thinking they could hardly do worse, lets give them a chance. But if the Dems dont step up and deliver a better performance than the republicans have, the electorate will be happy to toss them out at the next opportunity.

I think that's a pretty fair way of stating it.
One big problem among the many I see for the Dems is realizing why they got elected and trying to reconcile that with the portion of the Dem base that wants to go very hard to the left. Trying to outspend the excesses of the right, even for "socially correct" items, would be a disaster for them for example. Things like Bush's security measures, can you imagine what would happen if they repeal them and 6 months later we have another attack? Hell, even worse they keep them but put the running of the programs under Congressional control and something goes wrong. By the same token they have done nothing but raise objections to the things like the wiretapping so they have to try and make some change.  It's going to be a tough job for them, I don't know if they are up to the challenge or not but we can all hope. There certainly aren't going to be any easy solutions for these things.

One plausible possibility is that because the R's spent the last few years gerrmandering the districts, they had many of their losses in areas where the R candidate should have had 55% of the vote but because everyone was so upset, the D's were able to make up for that 10% inherent disadvantage.