The Senate has sold out the People

[southside grabowski]

This immigration bill is horrible. It will ruin and bankrupt America. We can only hope that the house blows this thing out of the water. The Senate and the President have sold out the people. We need strong. Conservative leadership in Washington and we need it now. Our country has been turned over the dictator of Mexico. He runs the US, our elected President.

"tremendous hidden costs of the bill, including the $500 billion in additional welfare payments it will cost American taxpayers in the period 10 to 20 years after its passage."


http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15165

[Fran441]

We need strong. Conservative leadership in Washington and we need it now.

The conservatives control the House, the Senate, and the White House. We do need change, and we do need it now, but the conservatives have blown it.

[addabox]

No, no, Fran, it's the New Thinking:

Since the Bush admin and the rubber stamp Congress have proven to be such manifest failures, it now necessary to declare them "not really conservative".

This is to set the groundwork for the '08 presidential election, where a "true conservative" standard bearer can emerge and pretend like the previous 8 years were ruined by "liberalism".

[jimmac]

Originally posted by addabox
No, no, Fran, it's the New Thinking:

Since the Bush admin and the rubber stamp Congress have proven to be such manifest failures, it now necessary to declare them "not really conservative".

This is to set the groundwork for the '08 presidential election, where a "true conservative" standard bearer can emerge and pretend like the previous 8 years were ruined by "liberalism".

:lol:


The scary thing is I'm sure some actually think this.

[southside grabowski]

It's the truth.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
It's the truth.

Uh right........:no:

Who's been in charge all this time?

I don't buy it And I don't think anyone else will.;)


The conservatives have had their day in the sun ( neo or not ).

Better to plan for 2012. ;)

[Aquatic]

Or 2016.

[addabox]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
It's the truth.

Just out of curiosity, if the Republicans in power are actually liberals, why have you spent so much time defending their policies?

I would have thought you would have been denouncing their "liberalism" right along, instead of waiting until it became painfully obvious that a lot of the country has begun to notice what fuck-ups they are.

Do you actually think that people aren't going to notice what a half-assed expedient fall back this is? That after 8 years of triumphalist invective against "terror loving peace-niks" and "irrational Bush hatred" the right can get away with declaring the whole Bush fiasco an unfortunate interlude of crypto-liberalism?

I'm starting to wonder if the conservative train wreck is going to be even worse than we've imagined, once you start turing on each other like rabid cur dogs.

Maybe you'll have the chance to get a taste of being Roved and Swift-boated. Wouldn't that be fun?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by addabox
Just out of curiosity, if the Republicans in power are actually liberals, why have you spent so much time defending their policies?

I would have thought you would have been denouncing their "liberalism" right along, instead of waiting until it became painfully obvious that a lot of the country has begun to notice what fuck-ups they are.

Do you actually think that people aren't going to notice what a half-assed expedient fall back this is? That after 8 years of triumphalist invective against "terror loving peace-niks" and "irrational Bush hatred" the right can get away with declaring the whole Bush fiasco an unfortunate interlude of crypto-liberalism?

I'm starting to wonder if the conservative train wreck is going to be even worse than we've imagined, once you start turing on each other like rabid cur dogs.

Maybe you'll have the chance to get a taste of being Roved and Swift-boated. Wouldn't that be fun? I read a piece recently - I can't remember where now - that argued this whole ratcheting-up of immigration by conservatives is a ploy to distance themselves from Bush. It's hard to imagine a spontaneous conspiracy like that, but I wonder if, subconsciously at least, they knew that Bush couldn't accept their absurd positions on this (you can't really either build a 2000-mile wall or deport 12 million people, and Bush has a reputation for being a buddy of Mexico), and so they went all-out on it for strategic political reasons. It seems to fit. Where did this vehemence on immigration suddenly come from, coincidentally right when Bush hit 30%?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by addabox
Just out of curiosity, if the Republicans in power are actually liberals, why have you spent so much time defending their policies?

I would have thought you would have been denouncing their "liberalism" right along, instead of waiting until it became painfully obvious that a lot of the country has begun to notice what fuck-ups they are.

Do you actually think that people aren't going to notice what a half-assed expedient fall back this is? That after 8 years of triumphalist invective against "terror loving peace-niks" and "irrational Bush hatred" the right can get away with declaring the whole Bush fiasco an unfortunate interlude of crypto-liberalism?

I'm starting to wonder if the conservative train wreck is going to be even worse than we've imagined, once you start turing on each other like rabid cur dogs.

Maybe you'll have the chance to get a taste of being Roved and Swift-boated. Wouldn't that be fun?

Conservatives are not running the country, my friend. Why do you think Bush's numbers are so low...and those of Congress? It's what I've been saying: The polls are at records lows because of disaffected conservatives. They don't like the liberal policies of the modern Republican party. The problem is they have no alternative. Democrats are even more liberal, and more out of touch on security issues.

By the way, I've been complaining about Republican policies quite a bit. Immigration. Spending. Government Expansion...they're all things I've pointed out. But where do I go with my vote?

[addabox]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Conservatives are not running the country, my friend. Why do you think Bush's numbers are so low...and those of Congress? It's what I've been saying: The polls are at records lows because of disaffected conservatives. They don't like the liberal policies of the modern Republican party. The problem is they have no alternative. Democrats are even more liberal, and more out of touch on security issues.

By the way, I've been complaining about Republican policies quite a bit. Immigration. Spending. Government Expansion...they're all things I've pointed out. But where do I go with my vote?


With all due respect, the "disaffected conservatives" thing is bullshit.

As long as Bush was riding high in his jodhpurs and riding crop, attending to his photo ops atop rubble heaps, none of his "liberal" policies seemed to cause his supporters any trouble.

I mean, he has been running up record deficits, mucking about in other countries, vastly expanding the federal government, packing agencies with ill-qualified cronies and building a secret surveillance appartus for the last five years, so what's changed?

Court appointees not conservative enough? Hasn't personally rammed through an anti-gay marriage amendment? Didn't completely eliminate taxes? Hasn't made Haliburton a federal agency? Failed to clear cut every remaining forest in America?

Don't tell me it's his immigration policies, because that has very obviously been pushed to the fore as a political football exactly because of shitty Republican polling numbers. Trying to use that as "why conservatives are breaking ranks with Bush" as this point is laughable.

The fact is, as long a being part of the "modern Republican party" was fun, with Bush looking invincible and screaming pundits denouncing liberal fellow travelers from every street corner, it was all good, and the polls bear that out.

I mean, ideology be damned as long as there's another Dixie Chick CD burning party to go to and "Nascar moms" got to stick it to those coastal elites, right?

We've just come through an orgy of divisive cultural hate mongering designed to obscure the wretched performance of this administration and a Republican party built to deliver swag, not govern, and the right went for it hook, line and sinker.

And now, now that it's the morning after and the bonfires are dying down and the revelers are noticing how everything kinda.....sucks.........now ya'll have suddenly reacquired your precious conservative "principles"? All of a sudden Mr. "doesn't he look hot in that flight suit" gets kicked out of bed? Now that "Freedom is on the March" is a tattered, beer and vomit soaked banner lying on the floor with the cigarette butts and party favors, now it's time solemnly pledge to go on the wagon, and that you never really liked "those kind of people" anyway?

Guess what? You made a deal-- Bush and the Republicans do whatever it takes to consolidate power and heap approbation on the people you've been taught to resent, and you wave your torches when called upon to do so and politely look the other way as they wreck the country.

And now you want out, now that the wreckage is piling up around your ears.

Bullshit.

And by the way, for someone who has so many long standing grievances with "the modern Republican party", how is it that you can always be relied on to defend their every move, as long as "liberals" are against it?

[groverat]

I'm fine with the whole "workaday Republican citizens aren't happy with Republican politicians", but what the hell is this drivel?
They don't like the liberal policies of the modern Republican party.

What?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by groverat


What?

It's really quite simple.

http://images.littlemeanfish.com/tree.jpg

[Towel]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It's what I've been saying: The polls are at records lows because of disaffected conservatives. Not really. Here's the latest Fox News poll (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX226_web.pdf). Yes, approval among Republicans is down from a steady 95% to 71%. But Bush's overall ratings are in the tank because only 13% of Dems and 24% of independents approve. If it were really disaffected Republicans driving him down to 35%, you'd expect 1. Rather less than a 3.5:1 approval:disapproval among Republicans and 2. Independents to fall in the middle, rather than disapproving almost as overwhelmingly as Dems.

What really drove him down in the last 6 months is that independents/centrists finally and utterly lost faith and deserted him. His Dem numbers have always been terrible, and Reps are still mostly standing fast. But independents have gone from roughly 50/50 to overwhelmingly disapproving. It's incredible, if you look at that Fox News poll, how independents' responses across a wide range of issues and opinions now almost perfectly parallel Dems.

[Aurora]

There is only 1 answer and that is to vote out every republican, i say that as a former republican now independent. The Republican Party is on another agenda and that is corporations replacing all liberty and freedom in our country. Get registered and vote out these clowns.

[SDW2001]

addabox:

With all due respect, the "disaffected conservatives" thing is bullshit.

Then how do youexplain the poll numbers? It's conservatives and to a certain extent, moderates. It's not liberals, who wouldn't vote for Bush...pardon the cliche..."no matter what he did"



As long as Bush was riding high in his jodhpurs and riding crop, attending to his photo ops atop rubble heaps, none of his "liberal" policies seemed to cause his supporters any trouble.

Disagree, hence his numbers. The question is whether or not that translates into voting for someone else. In 2004, answer was no. In 2006? I'm not so sure. I still don't see a good alternative to say the least, so I'm most likely voting Republican for most races this fall, perhaps with some exception.

I mean, he has been running up record deficits, mucking about in other countries, vastly expanding the federal government, packing agencies with ill-qualified cronies and building a secret surveillance appartus for the last five years, so what's changed?

Several things. Iraq is now drawn out, which some conseratives don't like. Most realize it's necessity, hence only some drop in the poll numbers amongst conservatives on that issue. The federal expansion has never been something we as conservatives have agreed with, but in the wake of terrorism and war, we've dealt with it. Now it's becoming an issue, as we've loaned out a lot of trust with regard to Iraq. The account is starting to dry up. As for packing agencies with ill-qualified cronies, I firmly disagree that's even happening, at least not more than it has been in previous administrations. Ditto on the "secret surveillance aparatus," which I support on its merits. Immigration is not a new issue, but it seems its come to a head and many conservatives don't like where Bush and Senate Republicans are on it.

Court appointees not conservative enough? Hasn't personally rammed through an anti-gay marriage amendment? Didn't completely eliminate taxes? Hasn't made Haliburton a federal agency? Failed to clear cut every remaining forest in America?

Conservatives didn't want Harriet Miers, now did they? Most support the two confirmed justices, I agree. The gay marriage amendment is actually not all that popular except with religous conservatives, so he loses some of the fiscal conservative base with that. True conservatives want a flat tax or other full-out reform, not just cuts. In light of huge federal spending, people want reform on both the spending and revenue sides. Haliburton is not an issue, and I won't engage in your hysterics concerning it. Forests are not an issue, though I will say that you're delibrately mischaracterizing the administration's position on it.

Don't tell me it's his immigration policies, because that has very obviously been pushed to the fore as a political football exactly because of shitty Republican polling numbers. Trying to use that as "why conservatives are breaking ranks with Bush" as this point is laughable.

That's stupid. Mainstream conseravatives are furious with our immigration policies. But again, where is the alternative?

The fact is, as long a being part of the "modern Republican party" was fun, with Bush looking invincible and screaming pundits denouncing liberal fellow travelers from every street corner, it was all good, and the polls bear that out.

I mean, ideology be damned as long as there's another Dixie Chick CD burning party to go to and "Nascar moms" got to stick it to those coastal elites, right?

Wait...you're saying that Bush's poll numbers are down because it's not fun to be a conservative? Interesting, since you don't seem to think it's conservatives that are at the heart of Bush's numbers. Which is it? In addition do you not see the elitism contained within your statement? I mean, these Nascar Dads and Soccer Moms must be pretty stupid. [crying hysterically] IT WAS ALL A LIE! A LIE![/crying hysterically]. The irony is amazing.

We've just come through an orgy of divisive cultural hate mongering designed to obscure the wretched performance of this administration and a Republican party built to deliver swag, not govern, and the right went for it hook, line and sinker.

Hate mongering? What is it with the left and accusing Republicans of "hating?" Why is it that you can't see conservatives are happy with Bush on some front, unhappy with him on others, and not sure where else there is to go right now with their vote? Oh, wait! Because we're sheep! I forgot.

And now, now that it's the morning after and the bonfires are dying down and the revelers are noticing how everything kinda.....sucks.........now ya'll have suddenly reacquired your precious conservative "principles"? All of a sudden Mr. "doesn't he look hot in that flight suit" gets kicked out of bed? Now that "Freedom is on the March" is a tattered, beer and vomit soaked banner lying on the floor with the cigarette butts and party favors, now it's time solemnly pledge to go on the wagon, and that you never really liked "those kind of people" anyway?

Everything kinda sucks? Hmm. That's interesting. The economy is booming. We haven't been attacked in 5 years. Saddam is in jail...he's not cutting out tongues and setting up rape rooms and filling mass graves, the Taliban are out of power, Iraq is on the path to Democracy, taxes are lower for the middle class, unemployment is lower than the historical average for the last 40 years. How is it that "everything sucks?" We're not happy about overall spending, immigration and gas prices. We'd also like to see more progess in Iraq, like everyone else. But you just can't believe that, can you?

Guess what? You made a deal-- Bush and the Republicans do whatever it takes to consolidate power and heap approbation on the people you've been taught to resent, and you wave your torches when called upon to do so and politely look the other way as they wreck the country.

And now you want out, now that the wreckage is piling up around your ears.

Bullshit.

I see. I voted for Republicans, and now I'm supposed to agree with them on every single issue. I'm also supposed to accept that they've "wrecked the country," which is bullshit in itself. I guess I should remember that I'm a sheep in your eyes, so it's impossible for me to actually critically think about any issue.

And by the way, for someone who has so many long standing grievances with "the modern Republican party", how is it that you can always be relied on to defend their every move, as long as "liberals" are against it?

I have not defended their every move. I have opposed lack of immigration enforcement, the medicare bill, the multitude of current entitlement programs, overall spending, lack of good energy policy, etc. I've also said I wanted more troops for the Iraq invasion and that I want to see things move more quickly there.

I have said so many times, but the fact of the matter is you and yours don't listen. It's much easier to paint me and any other conservative on this board as a right wing wack-a-doo. Meanwhile, you get to come out and oppose every single stance the Republicans take, attribute sinister motives to every single move, mischaracterize positions, call the President a liar and a big oil whore, call Republicans "hate filled hating haters," and be on your way...all while supporting each and every ridiculous move and statement by the Democratic party.

Who is the sheep here?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Towel
Not really. Here's the latest Fox News poll (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX226_web.pdf). Yes, approval among Republicans is down from a steady 95% to 71%. But Bush's overall ratings are in the tank because only 13% of Dems and 24% of independents approve. If it were really disaffected Republicans driving him down to 35%, you'd expect 1. Rather less than a 3.5:1 approval:disapproval among Republicans and 2. Independents to fall in the middle, rather than disapproving almost as overwhelmingly as Dems.

What really drove him down in the last 6 months is that independents/centrists finally and utterly lost faith and deserted him. His Dem numbers have always been terrible, and Reps are still mostly standing fast. But independents have gone from roughly 50/50 to overwhelmingly disapproving. It's incredible, if you look at that Fox News poll, how independents' responses across a wide range of issues and opinions now almost perfectly parallel Dems.

That's one poll. And he's taken a 25% hit in terms of Republicans. I stand by my statment. If conservatives were back on the ranch, he'd be in the mid forties to 50%.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Aurora
There is only 1 answer and that is to vote out every republican, i say that as a former republican now independent. The Republican Party is on another agenda and that is corporations replacing all liberty and freedom in our country. Get registered and vote out these clowns.

That's hysterical.

:lol:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Conservatives are not running the country, my friend. Why do you think Bush's numbers are so low...and those of Congress? It's what I've been saying: The polls are at records lows because of disaffected conservatives. They don't like the liberal policies of the modern Republican party. The problem is they have no alternative. Democrats are even more liberal, and more out of touch on security issues.

By the way, I've been complaining about Republican policies quite a bit. Immigration. Spending. Government Expansion...they're all things I've pointed out. But where do I go with my vote?


" To everything spin, spin, spin "

:lol:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
addabox:

With all due respect, the "disaffected conservatives" thing is bullshit.

Then how do youexplain the poll numbers? It's conservatives and to a certain extent, moderates. It's not liberals, who wouldn't vote for Bush...pardon the cliche..."no matter what he did"



As long as Bush was riding high in his jodhpurs and riding crop, attending to his photo ops atop rubble heaps, none of his "liberal" policies seemed to cause his supporters any trouble.

Disagree, hence his numbers. The question is whether or not that translates into voting for someone else. In 2004, answer was no. In 2006? I'm not so sure. I still don't see a good alternative to say the least, so I'm most likely voting Republican for most races this fall, perhaps with some exception.

I mean, he has been running up record deficits, mucking about in other countries, vastly expanding the federal government, packing agencies with ill-qualified cronies and building a secret surveillance appartus for the last five years, so what's changed?

Several things. Iraq is now drawn out, which some conseratives don't like. Most realize it's necessity, hence only some drop in the poll numbers amongst conservatives on that issue. The federal expansion has never been something we as conservatives have agreed with, but in the wake of terrorism and war, we've dealt with it. Now it's becoming an issue, as we've loaned out a lot of trust with regard to Iraq. The account is starting to dry up. As for packing agencies with ill-qualified cronies, I firmly disagree that's even happening, at least not more than it has been in previous administrations. Ditto on the "secret surveillance aparatus," which I support on its merits. Immigration is not a new issue, but it seems its come to a head and many conservatives don't like where Bush and Senate Republicans are on it.

Court appointees not conservative enough? Hasn't personally rammed through an anti-gay marriage amendment? Didn't completely eliminate taxes? Hasn't made Haliburton a federal agency? Failed to clear cut every remaining forest in America?

Conservatives didn't want Harriet Miers, now did they? Most support the two confirmed justices, I agree. The gay marriage amendment is actually not all that popular except with religous conservatives, so he loses some of the fiscal conservative base with that. True conservatives want a flat tax or other full-out reform, not just cuts. In light of huge federal spending, people want reform on both the spending and revenue sides. Haliburton is not an issue, and I won't engage in your hysterics concerning it. Forests are not an issue, though I will say that you're delibrately mischaracterizing the administration's position on it.

Don't tell me it's his immigration policies, because that has very obviously been pushed to the fore as a political football exactly because of shitty Republican polling numbers. Trying to use that as "why conservatives are breaking ranks with Bush" as this point is laughable.

That's stupid. Mainstream conseravatives are furious with our immigration policies. But again, where is the alternative?

The fact is, as long a being part of the "modern Republican party" was fun, with Bush looking invincible and screaming pundits denouncing liberal fellow travelers from every street corner, it was all good, and the polls bear that out.

I mean, ideology be damned as long as there's another Dixie Chick CD burning party to go to and "Nascar moms" got to stick it to those coastal elites, right?

Wait...you're saying that Bush's poll numbers are down because it's not fun to be a conservative? Interesting, since you don't seem to think it's conservatives that are at the heart of Bush's numbers. Which is it? In addition do you not see the elitism contained within your statement? I mean, these Nascar Dads and Soccer Moms must be pretty stupid. [crying hysterically] IT WAS ALL A LIE! A LIE![/crying hysterically]. The irony is amazing.

We've just come through an orgy of divisive cultural hate mongering designed to obscure the wretched performance of this administration and a Republican party built to deliver swag, not govern, and the right went for it hook, line and sinker.

Hate mongering? What is it with the left and accusing Republicans of "hating?" Why is it that you can't see conservatives are happy with Bush on some front, unhappy with him on others, and not sure where else there is to go right now with their vote? Oh, wait! Because we're sheep! I forgot.

And now, now that it's the morning after and the bonfires are dying down and the revelers are noticing how everything kinda.....sucks.........now ya'll have suddenly reacquired your precious conservative "principles"? All of a sudden Mr. "doesn't he look hot in that flight suit" gets kicked out of bed? Now that "Freedom is on the March" is a tattered, beer and vomit soaked banner lying on the floor with the cigarette butts and party favors, now it's time solemnly pledge to go on the wagon, and that you never really liked "those kind of people" anyway?

Everything kinda sucks? Hmm. That's interesting. The economy is booming. We haven't been attacked in 5 years. Saddam is in jail...he's not cutting out tongues and setting up rape rooms and filling mass graves, the Taliban are out of power, Iraq is on the path to Democracy, taxes are lower for the middle class, unemployment is lower than the historical average for the last 40 years. How is it that "everything sucks?" We're not happy about overall spending, immigration and gas prices. We'd also like to see more progess in Iraq, like everyone else. But you just can't believe that, can you?

Guess what? You made a deal-- Bush and the Republicans do whatever it takes to consolidate power and heap approbation on the people you've been taught to resent, and you wave your torches when called upon to do so and politely look the other way as they wreck the country.

And now you want out, now that the wreckage is piling up around your ears.

Bullshit.

I see. I voted for Republicans, and now I'm supposed to agree with them on every single issue. I'm also supposed to accept that they've "wrecked the country," which is bullshit in itself. I guess I should remember that I'm a sheep in your eyes, so it's impossible for me to actually critically think about any issue.

And by the way, for someone who has so many long standing grievances with "the modern Republican party", how is it that you can always be relied on to defend their every move, as long as "liberals" are against it?

I have not defended their every move. I have opposed lack of immigration enforcement, the medicare bill, the multitude of current entitlement programs, overall spending, lack of good energy policy, etc. I've also said I wanted more troops for the Iraq invasion and that I want to see things move more quickly there.

I have said so many times, but the fact of the matter is you and yours don't listen. It's much easier to paint me and any other conservative on this board as a right wing wack-a-doo. Meanwhile, you get to come out and oppose every single stance the Republicans take, attribute sinister motives to every single move, mischaracterize positions, call the President a liar and a big oil whore, call Republicans "hate filled hating haters," and be on your way...all while supporting each and every ridiculous move and statement by the Democratic party.



Who is the sheep here?


Can you say Bahhhhhhhaa?:lol:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
That's hysterical.

:lol:

I'm sure. However it's what the people are thinking SDW.;)

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Fran441
The conservatives control the House, the Senate, and the White House. We do need change, and we do need it now, but the conservatives have blown it. Isnt that the truth, no matter what they run its a mess. Throw out all the lifetimers and lets get a Senate who represents the folks and not the megacorporations. Americans are getting tired of the constant screwing by the spend,spend,spend republican party and the blind to the people Senate. Simply put this Senate Sucks.

[Frank777]

SDW, please never, ever do the red ink thing again. It's one thing to try to convince people to accept an opinion, and another to blind them for life.

As a (conservative) non-American, my take on this is that there are a lot of people ticked at Bush for a lot of different reasons. The anti-war crowd thinks it's because everyone agrees with them, but in fact there are a bunch of things that have converged.

Conservatives are ticked primarily because of the nation's finances. The war effort has affected the nation's purse, but not as much as the seemingly corrupt budget process. The last big bill I remember (Highways?) had a whole bunch of expensive, irrelevant stuff tacked on to appease local constituencies. A strong leader would have stood up and forced all that nonsense to be cut in a time of war. Bush did not.

[jimmac]

Exactly SDW. It's a convergence of things.

One mistake resting on another mistake.

The house of cards is starting come down SDW.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Frank777
SDW, please never, ever do the red ink thing again. It's one thing to try to convince people to accept an opinion, and another to blind them for life.

As a (conservative) non-American, my take on this is that there are a lot of people ticked at Bush for a lot of different reasons. The anti-war crowd thinks it's because everyone agrees with them, but in fact there are a bunch of things that have converged.

Conservatives are ticked primarily because of the nation's finances. The war effort has affected the nation's purse, but not as much as the seemingly corrupt budget process. The last big bill I remember (Highways?) had a whole bunch of expensive, irrelevant stuff tacked on to appease local constituencies. A strong leader would have stood up and forced all that nonsense to be cut in a time of war. Bush did not.

But, again, the things that might plausibly offend conservative voters as a matter of principle have been going on since Bush's poll numbers were sky high amongst those very conservatives, so what's changed?

I say the things that have "converged" aren't examples of Bush straying from the faith, because he never had faith. What he had is a blood and guts war party plus the always popular cult building technique of savagely demonizing the opposition. Those things combined to provide the right in this country with an exhilarating sense of "take no prisoners, we are by God gonna kick some ass and take some names!" It also, very obviously and consistently, preempted any claims to "conservative values"-- the point being that that was perfectly fine as long as the mob felt flush with adrenaline.

I say what's "converged" is the dawning realization that the guy is incompetent and dangerously unteachable (something a lot of us noticed all along), with the inevitable deflation of that "we will defeat the liberals and terrorists together" moment.

So it's not surprising that we have a growing number of born again sober minded fiscal moderation and small government conservatives-- they got swept up in something ugly and stupid and pointless and the country is all the worse for it. They just thought they were going to be living in a different country of their own, is all, and now that it turns out we're all in here together they are obliged to do anything they can to distance themselves from the mess they've made.

Which if fine and human nature and all, but that doesn't mean we have to confuse ass covering with principles.

[midwinter]

I would suggest that what changed was Katrina.

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
I would suggest that what changed was Katrina.

Pretty much.

The whole Rovian machine of "energize the base with wedge issues/manipulate the news cycle/message discipline/Swift Boat the opposition/photo op/photo op/ sound bite/photo op" kind of obviously lacks a critical component: any interest in governance.

Iraq has made that clear all along, of course, but until recently is was possible to use the blunt instrument of 9/11 to obscure that fact.

Katrina laid bare the emptiness and disinterest behind the rhetoric, for sure, but I would also nominate the Terry Schiavo debacle as a "scales from eyes" moment, when a typically detached and vacationing Bush was all of a sudden hopping on Air Force One to get something done. That just seemed to be a "pander too far".

Plus, the seeming unending series of scandals sends the message that, yes, your Republican government has been working hard, just not on, you know, governing.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by addabox
Pretty much.

The whole Rovian machine of "energize the base with wedge issues/manipulate the news cycle/message discipline/Swift Boat the opposition/photo op/photo op/ sound bite/photo op" kind of obviously lacks a critical component: any interest in governance.

Iraq has made that clear all along, of course, but until recently is was possible to use the blunt instrument of 9/11 to obscure that fact.

Katrina laid bare the emptiness and disinterest behind the rhetoric, for sure, but I would also nominate the Terry Schiavo debacle as a "scales from eyes" moment, when a typically detached and vacationing Bush was all of a sudden hopping on Air Force One to get something done. That just seemed to be a "pander too far".

Plus, the seeming unending series of scandals sends the message that, yes, your Republican government has been working hard, just not on, you know, governing.


I want to say I'm not beating my democratic drum as I'm registered independent. Having emphasized that it's something the rest of us saw a long time ago.

He hasn't looked like a good leader since before he was elected.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by jimmac
I want to say I'm not beating my democratic drum as I'm registered independent. Having emphasized that it's something the rest of us saw a long time ago.

He hasn't looked like a good leader since before he was elected.

This didn't help:

http://images.littlemeanfish.com/flood.jpg

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
This didn't help:

http://images.littlemeanfish.com/flood.jpg

It's a bitch when the real world comes barreling over the set pieces and cardboard props, ain't it?

Not the kind of photo-op they had in mind.

Speaking 'o which, how's that fabulous new day in New Orleans coming? I seem to vaguely recall some stirring words from megaphone boy, resplendent in shirt sleeves, about commitment and seeing the job through.

But I guess that requires some interest in results, and some system in place for getting things done.

[midwinter]

Nagin: "I don't want to see anybody do anymore goddamn press conferences. Put a moratorium on press conferences. Don't do another press conference until the resources are in this city" Sept 1.

Bush:

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/news/images/articles/091705.jpg

Sept 15.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Towel
Not really. Here's the latest Fox News poll (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX226_web.pdf). Yes, approval among Republicans is down from a steady 95% to 71%. That's right. And the latest CBS poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm) had similar findings: 35% overall approval rating, 6% from Dems, 26% from Inds, and 74% of Repubs. That's 74% approval from Repubs. They still think Bush should be on Mt. Rushmore.

But I think SDW is half right: In this highly polarized time, Bush needs 95% approval of Repubs in order to have a good overall approval rating. During previous presidencies, even during the Clinton years, there wasn't this kind of divergence.

Another issue with these polls: The categories are far from static. When Bush's approval goes down, less people call themselves Republicans. So you can't just look at approval from partisans as if they were constant groups of people.

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
Nagin: "I don't want to see anybody do anymore goddamn press conferences. Put a moratorium on press conferences. Don't do another press conference until the resources are in this city" Sept 1.

Bush:

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/news/images/articles/091705.jpg

Sept 15.

Yeah. The photo-op is the point. By the time people figure out that you didn't actually do anything (aside from line the pockets of your cronies), you can be onto the next "get out the base" wedge issue.

Oh, gee, looky there-- immigration!

By the way, I can't find the link at the moment, but did you happen to see the photo-op from Iraq (I think it was) that was set up exactly like that shot from New Orleans? Nice big white building lit up in the background to give a pleasing sense of depth to the shot of Bush, balancing the composition to one side, in the foreground.

Nothing contrived though, just spontaneous hard work Bush spontaneously talking about the spontaneous principles that guide his spontaneity.

[midwinter]

Well, it's the photo-op plus the three word phrase. You know. "Restoring America's Value." "Support Our Troops." "Flood Our Cities."

That kind of thing.

And yeah. The new wedge is immigration, which pisses me off to no end. I know there are folks like SteveNUMBEROFTHEDEVIL and all, but I just don't see how people put up with this kind of bullshit. I mean, it's Terrorism! um, Gays! um, Social Security! um, Immigration!

This will disappear by December.

I'm ready for a national campaign from the Democrats that just asks one question:

Tired of being jerked around?

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
.....I'm ready for a national campaign from the Democrats that just asks one question:

Tired of being jerked around? [/B]

Absolutely.

And the answer could be: "Let's get to work"

[Aurora]

Problem is the democrats dont seem to stand for anything and are bought and paid for by the same Corporations that have written all of Bush's policys. Neither party seems interested in the american worker tax payer.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Aurora
Problem is the democrats dont seem to stand for anything and are bought and paid for by the same Corporations that have written all of Bush's policys. Neither party seems interested in the american worker tax payer.

Bullshit. The Democats stand for seeming to stand for things. Similarly, the Republicans stand for taking strong, unequivocal stands on things. And standing on things. Like the rubble of collapsed buildings in New York or on ruined southern cities.*

--
* I"ll bet BRussell's plagiarism spidey-sense goes off.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Aurora
Problem is the democrats dont seem to stand for anything and are bought and paid for by the same Corporations that have written all of Bush's policys. Neither party seems interested in the american worker tax payer.

Well, "they all do it" has become pretty much the standard line of the Republicans, now that they are being indicted faster than we can keep up and the incompetence is busting out all over, but it's actually not true. This crowd has taken the inevitable inefficiency and corruption that taints any government and turned it into their organizing principle. Its like saying there's no use turning out murdering gangsters because the guy on the corner store overcharges for milk and it's all of a piece.

A Gore presidency, say, would not have had close ties to Enron and allowed it and other energy companies to simply write energy policy.

It is very unlikely that Gore would have invaded Iraq, because the cabal of neocons that engineered that little adventure would have had no place in his White House, and without them and political expediency, invading Iraq makes no sense whatsoever. Far more likely we would have gone into Afghanistan, post 9/11, caught bin Laden, and then stayed there long enough, with enough resources and focus, to actually make some changes in the region.

There would have been no "K Street Project" (at least not an effective one) wherein lobbyists are literally turned into Republican operatives and legislation is literally written by industry.

Since Gore is a Democrat, and Dems actually believe the government can do good things, it is likely that he would have appointed people who were qualified and had a track record of success to various government agencies, like, oh, I dunno, FEMA.

It is highly unlikely that Gore would have been running an active campaign of suppressing and attacking scientific findings that ran counter to his policies, meaning we might have actually had a chance to start to address thing like global warming and stem cell research. I doubt there would have been a lot of time expended on loopy appointees insisting that science agencies give "equal time" to creationist rhetoric.

It's not that the Dems have gotten better, it's that the Republicans have gotten so very much worse. At this point, just business as usual, low level graft and waste would look like the fucking flowering of Athenian democracy, you know?

Just staff the federal government with people who know a little something about what they're supposed to be doing, and don't do anything tragically stupid. Really, at this point, that would be plenty.

[Aurora]

I still think every American should vote out its incumbant Senator. Everyone from Kennedy to Mccain. Lets send the senators a clear message we want you gone for not representing us for years.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Aurora
I still think every American should vote out its incumbant Senator. Everyone from Kennedy to Mccain. Lets send the senators a clear message we want you gone for not representing us for years.

I know that this is a mighty popular sentiment these days, but I would suggest you take a look at California's legislature before you inflict such a thing on the entire nation.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by midwinter
This didn't help:

http://images.littlemeanfish.com/flood.jpg


Yes. It's really unfortunate that it took something like that to wake people up to the fact that this guy only cares about himself. Totally clueless and out of touch.

I guess something like that doesn't become super obvious until the second term. That's the point when he doesn't have anything to lose.

It was really appalling the way that was handled.

Let's hope that there's no more incidents between now and the end of his term because there isn't much at the wheel right now.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by jimmac

Let's hope that there's no more incidents between now and the end of his term because there isn't much at the wheel right now.

We can only hope (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2634.htm) that this administration isn't expected to govern anytime soon.

[vinea]

Originally posted by Aurora
I still think every American should vote out its incumbant Senator. Everyone from Kennedy to Mccain. Lets send the senators a clear message we want you gone for not representing us for years.

I think every other state should vote out its incumbant Senator. I'm thinking this sentiment is more common than yours.

I'm guessing that pragmatism outweights outrage...

Vinea

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Frank777
SDW, please never, ever do the red ink thing again. It's one thing to try to convince people to accept an opinion, and another to blind them for life.

As a (conservative) non-American, my take on this is that there are a lot of people ticked at Bush for a lot of different reasons. The anti-war crowd thinks it's because everyone agrees with them, but in fact there are a bunch of things that have converged.

Conservatives are ticked primarily because of the nation's finances. The war effort has affected the nation's purse, but not as much as the seemingly corrupt budget process. The last big bill I remember (Highways?) had a whole bunch of expensive, irrelevant stuff tacked on to appease local constituencies. A strong leader would have stood up and forced all that nonsense to be cut in a time of war. Bush did not.

I agree with this in general.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by addabox
But, again, the things that might plausibly offend conservative voters as a matter of principle have been going on since Bush's poll numbers were sky high amongst those very conservatives, so what's changed?

I say the things that have "converged" aren't examples of Bush straying from the faith, because he never had faith. What he had is a blood and guts war party plus the always popular cult building technique of savagely demonizing the opposition. Those things combined to provide the right in this country with an exhilarating sense of "take no prisoners, we are by God gonna kick some ass and take some names!" It also, very obviously and consistently, preempted any claims to "conservative values"-- the point being that that was perfectly fine as long as the mob felt flush with adrenaline.

I say what's "converged" is the dawning realization that the guy is incompetent and dangerously unteachable (something a lot of us noticed all along), with the inevitable deflation of that "we will defeat the liberals and terrorists together" moment.

So it's not surprising that we have a growing number of born again sober minded fiscal moderation and small government conservatives-- they got swept up in something ugly and stupid and pointless and the country is all the worse for it. They just thought they were going to be living in a different country of their own, is all, and now that it turns out we're all in here together they are obliged to do anything they can to distance themselves from the mess they've made.

Which if fine and human nature and all, but that doesn't mean we have to confuse ass covering with principles.

Mainstream conservatives have always been uncomfortable with some of Bush's policies, that's true. That doesn't mean that we're going to vote Democrat though. It does mean we're going to express displeasure when a pollster calls and asks about job approval.

It does go beyond Bush. I think what you have is a realization that the conservatives are not actually running things on the Congressional side, and a further realization that Bush is really not going to get control of the purse strings anytime soon. Couple that with anger over immigration and setbacks in Iraq, and you have your numbers explained pretty well.

Take the Senate immigration bill, which is what this thread is about. It sucks. Conservatives want border security before all else. They're unhappy with the Senate bill. And, while the Republicans have not addressed the issue while they've been in power, we did hope that the conservatives would win the day and we'd get a better bill. At present, it doesn't look like that's the case. Bush has also not taken the lead on this, which further pushes his numbers down.

All that said, your portrayal of conservatives is laughable. It really just plays into your worldview: To vote for Bush or the Republicans, one must be either stupid or rich.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by addabox
Pretty much.

The whole Rovian machine of "energize the base with wedge issues/manipulate the news cycle/message discipline/Swift Boat the opposition/photo op/photo op/ sound bite/photo op" kind of obviously lacks a critical component: any interest in governance.

Iraq has made that clear all along, of course, but until recently is was possible to use the blunt instrument of 9/11 to obscure that fact.

Katrina laid bare the emptiness and disinterest behind the rhetoric, for sure, but I would also nominate the Terry Schiavo debacle as a "scales from eyes" moment, when a typically detached and vacationing Bush was all of a sudden hopping on Air Force One to get something done. That just seemed to be a "pander too far".

Plus, the seeming unending series of scandals sends the message that, yes, your Republican government has been working hard, just not on, you know, governing.

You just don't stop.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by addabox
It's a bitch when the real world comes barreling over the set pieces and cardboard props, ain't it?

Not the kind of photo-op they had in mind.

Speaking 'o which, how's that fabulous new day in New Orleans coming? I seem to vaguely recall some stirring words from megaphone boy, resplendent in shirt sleeves, about commitment and seeing the job through.

But I guess that requires some interest in results, and some system in place for getting things done.

Let's talk about what the Federal Government should have done? The only mistake I see is that they did not invoke the Insurrection Act. This was debated, but they opted against it.

Secondly, why do you ignore the unmitigated incompetence of the State and Local Governments? Why do you ignore the stories of trucks full of water and ice being denied entry to the city by local authorities? Why do you ignore Mayor Nagin's blatant incompetence...and racism? Or Blanco's hysterical sobbing..and wait for it...incompetence?

Third, why do you assume that the Federal Government bears responsibility for disaster rebuilding, beyond local federal infastructure?

Last, why can you not acknowledge the scope of this natural disaster was something we as a nation were simply unprepared for in total, and that a good portion of the damage and destruction was completely unstoppable even if we were prepared?

Hey..I hear there is going to be a Tornado in Kansas tonight. Better get to work Blaming Bush for lack of funding for early warning systems.

[Aurora]

Federal branches is ran by republicans, all three branches and Bush is King. The buck stops with Bush & republicans and from what i have seen they arent qualified to run a little league team let alone a country. Proof is in the pudding just look at Fema,Katrina,Borders,Immigration,Iraq,Global warming,Oil energy,healthcare etc. These clowns dont represent us they represent something else.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Mainstream conservatives have always been uncomfortable with some of Bush's policies, that's true. That doesn't mean that we're going to vote Democrat though. It does mean we're going to express displeasure when a pollster calls and asks about job approval.

It does go beyond Bush. I think what you have is a realization that the conservatives are not actually running things on the Congressional side, and a further realization that Bush is really not going to get control of the purse strings anytime soon. Couple that with anger over immigration and setbacks in Iraq, and you have your numbers explained pretty well.

Take the Senate immigration bill, which is what this thread is about. It sucks. Conservatives want border security before all else. They're unhappy with the Senate bill. And, while the Republicans have not addressed the issue while they've been in power, we did hope that the conservatives would win the day and we'd get a better bill. At present, it doesn't look like that's the case. Bush has also not taken the lead on this, which further pushes his numbers down.

All that said, your portrayal of conservatives is laughable. It really just plays into your worldview: To vote for Bush or the Republicans, one must be either stupid or rich.


-----------------------------------------------------------
" To vote for Bush or the Republicans, one must be either stupid or rich. "
-----------------------------------------------------------

God! I think he's got it!
:lol:

[Aurora]

Originally posted by midwinter
I know that this is a mighty popular sentiment these days, but I would suggest you take a look at California's legislature before you inflict such a thing on the entire nation. The senate has sold out the American people so many times it aint funny,yesterday it was moving all factories to China, tomorrow it will be giving free Social Security to 10 million mexicans while still ignoring the borders. Throw out the Trash! If your California is such a mess throw them out too.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Aurora
The senate has sold out the American people so many times it aint funny,yesterday it was moving all factories to China, tomorrow it will be giving free Social Security to 10 million mexicans while still ignoring the borders. Throw out the Trash! If your California is such a mess throw them out too.

Well, first off, I don't live in CA. I live in the reddest state in the union.

Second, CA is a mess because its legislature is term-limited. While this sounds great to some folks, what it means is that no one is in office long enough to really understand a) how things work or b) to get any kind of political capital.

In short, CA is literally governed by people who don't know what they're doing.

[addabox]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Mainstream conservatives have always been uncomfortable with some of Bush's policies, that's true. That doesn't mean that we're going to vote Democrat though. It does mean we're going to express displeasure when a pollster calls and asks about job approval.

It does go beyond Bush. I think what you have is a realization that the conservatives are not actually running things on the Congressional side, and a further realization that Bush is really not going to get control of the purse strings anytime soon. Couple that with anger over immigration and setbacks in Iraq, and you have your numbers explained pretty well.

Take the Senate immigration bill, which is what this thread is about. It sucks. Conservatives want border security before all else. They're unhappy with the Senate bill. And, while the Republicans have not addressed the issue while they've been in power, we did hope that the conservatives would win the day and we'd get a better bill. At present, it doesn't look like that's the case. Bush has also not taken the lead on this, which further pushes his numbers down.

All that said, your portrayal of conservatives is laughable. It really just plays into your worldview: To vote for Bush or the Republicans, one must be either stupid or rich.

Right. So conservatives have been guarded in their support of Bush all along, they have just done a really good job of keeping it secret. Polls tell us nothing useful, because, inexplicably, conservatives are prohibited from telling the truth to pollsters, even if it means choosing "somewhat support" over "adore unconditionally". You know all this because you have the secret conservative mind reading gene.

Is there something about the conservative mindset that encourages believing that non-conservatives are incapable of noticing the recent past? Your line of reasoning is weirdly similar to the post "no-WMD" scramble to repurpose the Iraq invasion and pretend like that was the deal all along and "everybody" knew it.

It's really simple: Bush does wildly not conservative things and sets a belligerent, take-no-prisoners tone at home and abroad. Conservatives overwhelmingly support him. Bush embarks on an ill-founded preemptive invasion of Iraq, conservatives overwhelmingly support him, and join in a big old orgy of liberal bashing, angrily denouncing the leftist terror loving pussies. Bush runs up giant national debt, conservatives decide debt no longer a problem. Bush installs secret government surveillance programs, conservatives decide keeping the revenuers out of yer bidness no longer a problem.

I mean, this did all happen very recently, you know. Pretending that there were all these disaffected conservatives who kept it to themselves and didn't act on their feelings in any way but you just know they were there isn't much of an inoculation.

No, none of it is a problem until it all falls apart and the right realizes that running as a Bush republican isn't such a bright prospect-- and, Presto!
We never really liked him all along™! We had, um..... Secret Misgivings™.

Oh, and, look here, we can prove it: We Hate His Stand On Immigration™, and, no, we don't find the timing to be cynical, why do you ask?

The funny thing is that you, SDW, are a perfect case in point for the bind that the Republicans find themselves: you can claim to be principled and to part company with Bush on any number of issues, but here you are, tirelessly defending Bush and the Republicans on every single point of contention that comes up. Except: wait for it-- immigration!

Rich or stupid? You have me confused with someone else. My word would be reactionary, plus the reflexive will to power at all costs that comes with the conservative obsession with seeing themselves as "beleaguered outsiders". As in easily herded by cultural wedge issues and the specter of the liberal elites mandating gay marriage. And, of course, cultural wedge issues will be the center-piece of the mid-term elections, as they have been for the last 30 years or so.

And if it doesn't work this time because the policies they enableded have proven to be harmful to the country in ways that no one can ignore, and that the whole "tomorrow belongs to us" thing has kind of gone off the rails, please don't pretend they didn't work before and that Bush was a conservative that betrayed your trust. Ya'll knew exactly what you were voting for.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by midwinter
Well, first off, I don't live in CA. I live in the reddest state in the union.

Second, CA is a mess because its legislature is term-limited. While this sounds great to some folks, what it means is that no one is in office long enough to really understand a) how things work or b) to get any kind of political capital.

In short, CA is literally governed by people who don't know what they're doing.

It looks like we're between the proverbial rock and hard place. What is the best course... governmental screw ups because of inexperience and/or tackling political-process learning curves, or the corruption thats endemic in longterm career politicians who learn the skills of how to manipulate the system while staying within the law by the tiniest of margins?

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by jimmac
-----------------------------------------------------------
" To vote for Bush or the Republicans, one must be either stupid or rich. "
-----------------------------------------------------------

God! I think he's got it!
:lol: Read my siggy. :D

[SDW2001]

addabox:

Right. So conservatives have been guarded in their support of Bush all along, they have just done a really good job of keeping it secret. Polls tell us nothing useful, because, inexplicably, conservatives are prohibited from telling the truth to pollsters, even if it means choosing "somewhat support" over "adore unconditionally". You know all this because you have the secret conservative mind reading gene.

That's just it. It's never been a secret, you've just failed to acknowledge it. The thing is that you've been quite busy running around calling Bush supporters Blind Sheep...so busy that you actually started to believe it. Meanwhile, Bush supporters have always been far more complex in their thinking and positions than you've ever acknowledged. It's really an amazing revelation: Someone can support a President without agreeing with him on everything.

Is there something about the conservative mindset that encourages believing that non-conservatives are incapable of noticing the recent past? Your line of reasoning is weirdly similar to the post "no-WMD" scramble to repurpose the Iraq invasion and pretend like that was the deal all along and "everybody" knew it.

I think the problem is what you percieve to be the recent past. It seems to me, to use your example, that the administration layed out many different reasons to invade Iraq. Of course, at the time the anti-Bushies said the opposite...that there were no WMD and it was all a lie and there was no imminent threat. Then, when no WMD were found, you screamed "they're switching justifications!!!"

It's really simple: Bush does wildly not conservative things and sets a belligerent, take-no-prisoners tone at home and abroad. Conservatives overwhelmingly support him. Bush embarks on an ill-founded preemptive invasion of Iraq, conservatives overwhelmingly support him, and join in a big old orgy of liberal bashing, angrily denouncing the leftist terror loving pussies. Bush runs up giant national debt, conservatives decide debt no longer a problem. Bush installs secret government surveillance programs, conservatives decide keeping the revenuers out of yer bidness no longer a problem.

Or, conservatives support the President for invading Iraq, tolerate the deficit in the wake of 9/11 and recession, and don't like the massive federal expansion that has happened in the past few years. Oh, and we still think liberals are pussies.

I mean, this did all happen very recently, you know. Pretending that there were all these disaffected conservatives who kept it to themselves and didn't act on their feelings in any way but you just know they were there isn't much of an inoculation.

Exactly. Much of what has the drawn the ire of conservatives has happened recently.

No, none of it is a problem until it all falls apart and the right realizes that running as a Bush republican isn't such a bright prospect-- and, Presto!
We never really liked him all along™! We had, um..... Secret Misgivings™.

Oh, and, look here, we can prove it: We Hate His Stand On Immigration™, and, no, we don't find the timing to be cynical, why do you ask?

Right...see it's really just that we want to be on the winning team. Seriously...shut up. You're babbling.

The funny thing is that you, SDW, are a perfect case in point for the bind that the Republicans find themselves: you can claim to be principled and to part company with Bush on any number of issues, but here you are, tirelessly defending Bush and the Republicans on every single point of contention that comes up. Except: wait for it-- immigration!

Really? Once again, you've just refused to notice. Immigration is something that I'm displeased about, that's true. But let's add to my "single issue" to illustrate the point.

I want real tax reform, like a flat tax.

I want entitlement reform.

I disagreed with the medicare expansion.

I think McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

Federal spending is out of control.

We need more active duty military, some of which should be placed on the borders.


Those are just some examples. Many other conservatives feel the same way. Now, in light of our lack of enforcement of immigration policies, growing federal government, deficit, etc...some conservatives are displeased with the President. Imagine the shock. [

Rich or stupid? You have me confused with someone else. My word would be reactionary, plus the reflexive will to power at all costs that comes with the conservative obsession with seeing themselves as "beleaguered outsiders". As in easily herded by cultural wedge issues and the specter of the liberal elites mandating gay marriage. And, of course, cultural wedge issues will be the center-piece of the mid-term elections, as they have been for the last 30 years or so.

And if it doesn't work this time because the policies they enableded have proven to be harmful to the country in ways that no one can ignore, and that the whole "tomorrow belongs to us" thing has kind of gone off the rails, please don't pretend they didn't work before and that Bush was a conservative that betrayed your trust. Ya'll knew exactly what you were voting for.

Our government is not governing with conservative policies. You can't pretend that we "tried it that way" and it failed. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our policies have grown consistently more liberal over the last 40 years, and those same policies have failed time and time again. The Republicans may be running things, but it's not the true conservatives especially as it pertains to fiscal policy. Bush certainly ran as a conservative and I would argue, initially governed that way. His tax cuts are a prime example. Federal spending and immigration policy are examples of areas that he's let down the party's base on.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Read my siggy. :D


:lol:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
addabox:

Right. So conservatives have been guarded in their support of Bush all along, they have just done a really good job of keeping it secret. Polls tell us nothing useful, because, inexplicably, conservatives are prohibited from telling the truth to pollsters, even if it means choosing "somewhat support" over "adore unconditionally". You know all this because you have the secret conservative mind reading gene.

That's just it. It's never been a secret, you've just failed to acknowledge it. The thing is that you've been quite busy running around calling Bush supporters Blind Sheep...so busy that you actually started to believe it. Meanwhile, Bush supporters have always been far more complex in their thinking and positions than you've ever acknowledged. It's really an amazing revelation: Someone can support a President without agreeing with him on everything.

Is there something about the conservative mindset that encourages believing that non-conservatives are incapable of noticing the recent past? Your line of reasoning is weirdly similar to the post "no-WMD" scramble to repurpose the Iraq invasion and pretend like that was the deal all along and "everybody" knew it.

I think the problem is what you percieve to be the recent past. It seems to me, to use your example, that the administration layed out many different reasons to invade Iraq. Of course, at the time the anti-Bushies said the opposite...that there were no WMD and it was all a lie and there was no imminent threat. Then, when no WMD were found, you screamed "they're switching justifications!!!"

It's really simple: Bush does wildly not conservative things and sets a belligerent, take-no-prisoners tone at home and abroad. Conservatives overwhelmingly support him. Bush embarks on an ill-founded preemptive invasion of Iraq, conservatives overwhelmingly support him, and join in a big old orgy of liberal bashing, angrily denouncing the leftist terror loving pussies. Bush runs up giant national debt, conservatives decide debt no longer a problem. Bush installs secret government surveillance programs, conservatives decide keeping the revenuers out of yer bidness no longer a problem.

Or, conservatives support the President for invading Iraq, tolerate the deficit in the wake of 9/11 and recession, and don't like the massive federal expansion that has happened in the past few years. Oh, and we still think liberals are pussies.

I mean, this did all happen very recently, you know. Pretending that there were all these disaffected conservatives who kept it to themselves and didn't act on their feelings in any way but you just know they were there isn't much of an inoculation.

Exactly. Much of what has the drawn the ire of conservatives has happened recently.

No, none of it is a problem until it all falls apart and the right realizes that running as a Bush republican isn't such a bright prospect-- and, Presto!
We never really liked him all along™! We had, um..... Secret Misgivings™.

Oh, and, look here, we can prove it: We Hate His Stand On Immigration™, and, no, we don't find the timing to be cynical, why do you ask?

Right...see it's really just that we want to be on the winning team. Seriously...shut up. You're babbling.

The funny thing is that you, SDW, are a perfect case in point for the bind that the Republicans find themselves: you can claim to be principled and to part company with Bush on any number of issues, but here you are, tirelessly defending Bush and the Republicans on every single point of contention that comes up. Except: wait for it-- immigration!

Really? Once again, you've just refused to notice. Immigration is something that I'm displeased about, that's true. But let's add to my "single issue" to illustrate the point.

I want real tax reform, like a flat tax.

I want entitlement reform.

I disagreed with the medicare expansion.

I think McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

Federal spending is out of control.

We need more active duty military, some of which should be placed on the borders.


Those are just some examples. Many other conservatives feel the same way. Now, in light of our lack of enforcement of immigration policies, growing federal government, deficit, etc...some conservatives are displeased with the President. Imagine the shock. [

Rich or stupid? You have me confused with someone else. My word would be reactionary, plus the reflexive will to power at all costs that comes with the conservative obsession with seeing themselves as "beleaguered outsiders". As in easily herded by cultural wedge issues and the specter of the liberal elites mandating gay marriage. And, of course, cultural wedge issues will be the center-piece of the mid-term elections, as they have been for the last 30 years or so.

And if it doesn't work this time because the policies they enableded have proven to be harmful to the country in ways that no one can ignore, and that the whole "tomorrow belongs to us" thing has kind of gone off the rails, please don't pretend they didn't work before and that Bush was a conservative that betrayed your trust. Ya'll knew exactly what you were voting for.

Our government is not governing with conservative policies. You can't pretend that we "tried it that way" and it failed. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our policies have grown consistently more liberal over the last 40 years, and those same policies have failed time and time again. The Republicans may be running things, but it's not the true conservatives especially as it pertains to fiscal policy. Bush certainly ran as a conservative and I would argue, initially governed that way. His tax cuts are a prime example. Federal spending and immigration policy are examples of areas that he's let down the party's base on.


Purple Haze man!

Geez! Give it up SDW!

You've been Bush's biggest cheerleader here.

Nobody's buying this tactic so don't even start.


Also telling people to shut up isn't going to change anyone's mind.


Bottom line : The republicans have dominated the control for the last 2 decades and things are still shitty.

The only time they weren't sliding all the time was a brief period in the 90's and guess who was in control then?

It makes one take serious stock in what's going on.

That pretty much says it all.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Purple Haze man!

Geez! Give it up SDW!

You've been Bush's biggest cheerleader here.

Nobody's buying this tactic so don't even start.


Also telling people to shut up isn't going to change anyone's mind.


Bottom line : The republicans have dominated the control for the last 2 decades and things are still shitty.

The only time they weren't sliding all the time was a brief period in the 90's and guess who was in control then?

It makes one take serious stock in what's going on.

That pretty much says it all.

I am a supporter of the President, that is true. My feelings about the deficit, federal spending and even immigration do not change that, though I disagree with him on all of those issues. I realize that's an amazing concept for you to comprehend.

Secondly, I have previously pointed out my disagreements in this public forum on numerous occasions, not just recently. Good luck trying to pretend that I haven't.

Third, the Republicans have controlled congress for about 10 years. That said, I don't see how you equate this with conservative Republicans running things. That's like saying moderate Democrats have been running the Democratic Party for the last five years.

Fourth, what the hell does "sliding" mean? Are you actually back to arguing that the economy is always bad with Republicans in office? Please, do you really want to have that argument with me again?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I am a supporter of the President, that is true. My feelings about the deficit, federal spending and even immigration do not change that, though I disagree with him on all of those issues. I realize that's an amazing concept for you to comprehend.

Secondly, I have previously pointed out my disagreements in this public forum on numerous occasions, not just recently. Good luck trying to pretend that I haven't.

Third, the Republicans have controlled congress for about 10 years. That said, I don't see how you equate this with conservative Republicans running things. That's like saying moderate Democrats have been running the Democratic Party for the last five years.

Fourth, what the hell does "sliding" mean? Are you actually back to arguing that the economy is always bad with Republicans in office? Please, do you really want to have that argument with me again?


Firstly congress isn't the only influence in washington.

There's a president you know.

We're talking Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Another Bush.

Do the math!

During the republican tenure if there hasn't been bad economic times there was racking up the national debt ( and not in a small way mind you ) to make future crappy outlook times.

Out of the four mentioned above only one set a policy of paying for things.

Out of four there was only one who did something about it.

Guess who?

As a matter of fact they are the only times in the last 20 years where things were going reasonably well across the board.

They all promised to do something about the debt. Only one did.

Now Clinton isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. He did plenty of dumb things. As a matter of fact I blame him for our current dilemma with Bush in office. If he hadn't had that little affair Gore might of won the next election. It was really close if you'll recall. But because of his lack of good judgement america soured on a democrats. Just like they're doing right now with Bush and the republicans. Plus there's the cycle thing where it was ripe for a change. Also just like now.

As far as the job goes Clinton did pretty well by comparison to these other guys.

If I might remind you we had a surplus before our current Bush took office.

Now we have a debt bigger than ever.

I know you'll try to say " Debt can be good ". Yeah well not one of this magnitude.

Now there are other things like the environment, programs that were total failures like the war on drugs and the star wars program where lots of money was spent with little or no return. But you would never admit such things because you'd find some way of spinning out of it. You'd excuse or apologise for it and say it was nothing.

So once again what's the point?

Attempting to say it was Bush's fault this time and excusing the rest of the republicans who've been running things is just nothing short of lame.

Also you'll forgive me if I think your disagreements here with Mr. Bush haven't exactly stuck out like a sore thumb.;)

[Northgate]

Originally posted by midwinter
Well, first off, I don't live in CA. I live in the reddest state in the union.

Second, CA is a mess because its legislature is term-limited. While this sounds great to some folks, what it means is that no one is in office long enough to really understand a) how things work or b) to get any kind of political capital.

In short, CA is literally governed by people who don't know what they're doing.

That's exactly right. And they're not in office long enough to be held accountable for the votes they make.

Can anyone say "Energy Crisis"?

[addabox]

Originally posted by Northgate
That's exactly right. And they're not in office long enough to be held accountable for the votes they make.

Can anyone say "Energy Crisis"?

Not in office long enough to be held accountable, or to learn how to do their job, or to have much interest in compromise, or, most importantly, to know more about the system than the lobbyists, who, go figure, are not term limited.

Hmmm.... amateur legislators vs. seasoned pro industry bag-men. What a surprise-- the energy industry heavily subsidized the Prop. 140 term limit drive!

I, for one, support term limits for mechanics and doctors. After all, after they've been at it for awhile, they become wily insiders and fat cats.

Better to rotate out experienced mechanics and doctors for novices every few years. To keep them honest.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Aurora
I still think every American should vote out its incumbant Senator. Everyone from Kennedy to Mccain. Lets send the senators a clear message we want you gone for not representing us for years.

Hey your message did not fall on deaf ears. I am with you with your idea here.

The Republicans and AND that's right I said "and" Democrats are bought off by corporations which have been selling off the interests of the American people for years.

Bought and paid for politicians.

American people sold out.

Corporations cost cutting away American jobs while importing slave labor made products from China etc.

Americans MUST demand government to represent "we the people" not the allmighty corporations and cronies in high places.

Vote out ALL of those who do not represent YOU...

WE NEED TO STOP STARTING WARS TO SECURE OIL SUPPLIES.

WE NEED TAX POLICY TO GIVE INCENTIVE / BREAK TO THE BUYING OF ENERGY SAVING TECHNOLOGIES.

WE NEED TO VALUE MEDICAL CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS.

WE NEED TO PLACE SUPREME IMPORTANCE UPON QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL AMERICAN STUDENTS.

WE NEED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM NOW!

WE NEED MORE THAN JUST TWO PARTIES TO CHOOSE FROM NOW!

LEADERS SHOULD NOT RESORT TO WEDGE ISSUE POLITICS.

LEADERS UNITE THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

LEADERS MAINTAIN COOPERATION WITH THEIR FELLOW ALLIES ABROAD AND REACH CONSENSUS NOT EXTREAMISM.


May God truly Bless this land and free our peoples from the faults and mistakes of this government.

May the American people stand up and DEMAND QUALITY GOVERNANCE.


Fellowship

[iPoster]

Why is it ONLY Republicans or Democrats?

Why not a viable 3rd party that represents the middle majority of Americans who identify with neither party?

With 3 (or more) parties, there would be some real group compromise and working together to gather enough votes on issues, rather than the current "our party has the most seats so any bills your party tries to pass are dead", making party members toe the line or else, etc...

Just my .02 USD...

[trailmaster308]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Let's talk about what the Federal Government should have done? The only mistake I see is that they did not invoke the Insurrection Act.

I have an idea. Why don't you come down here and we will get some people together that lived through it.....and you tell us all that YOU THINK (cute) that the Federal Government only made one mistake.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Hey your message did not fall on deaf ears. I am with you with your idea here.

The Republicans and AND that's right I said "and" Democrats are bought off by corporations which have been selling off the interests of the American people for years.

Bought and paid for politicians.

American people sold out.

Corporations cost cutting away American jobs while importing slave labor made products from China etc.

Americans MUST demand government to represent "we the people" not the allmighty corporations and cronies in high places.

Vote out ALL of those who do not represent YOU...

WE NEED TO STOP STARTING WARS TO SECURE OIL SUPPLIES.

WE NEED TAX POLICY TO GIVE INCENTIVE / BREAK TO THE BUYING OF ENERGY SAVING TECHNOLOGIES.

WE NEED TO VALUE MEDICAL CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS.

WE NEED TO PLACE SUPREME IMPORTANCE UPON QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL AMERICAN STUDENTS.

WE NEED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM NOW!

WE NEED MORE THAN JUST TWO PARTIES TO CHOOSE FROM NOW!

LEADERS SHOULD NOT RESORT TO WEDGE ISSUE POLITICS.

LEADERS UNITE THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

LEADERS MAINTAIN COOPERATION WITH THEIR FELLOW ALLIES ABROAD AND REACH CONSENSUS NOT EXTREAMISM.


May God truly Bless this land and free our peoples from the faults and mistakes of this government.

May the American people stand up and DEMAND QUALITY GOVERNANCE.


Fellowship Nice post and I agree. Very few of these guys are worth a bag of cat poo. VOTE EM OUT! Its all we can do. They havent represented anything American in a decade. Patriot Act passed without even being read. Pathetic paid for by corporations Senators. We could do better as a nation with a random draw of anyone.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Firstly congress isn't the only influence in washington.

There's a president you know.

We're talking Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Another Bush.

Do the math!

During the republican tenure if there hasn't been bad economic times there was racking up the national debt ( and not in a small way mind you ) to make future crappy outlook times.

Out of the four mentioned above only one set a policy of paying for things.

Out of four there was only one who did something about it.

Guess who?

As a matter of fact they are the only times in the last 20 years where things were going reasonably well across the board.

They all promised to do something about the debt. Only one did.

Now Clinton isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. He did plenty of dumb things. As a matter of fact I blame him for our current dilemma with Bush in office. If he hadn't had that little affair Gore might of won the next election. It was really close if you'll recall. But because of his lack of good judgement america soured on a democrats. Just like they're doing right now with Bush and the republicans. Plus there's the cycle thing where it was ripe for a change. Also just like now.

As far as the job goes Clinton did pretty well by comparison to these other guys.

If I might remind you we had a surplus before our current Bush took office.

Now we have a debt bigger than ever.

I know you'll try to say " Debt can be good ". Yeah well not one of this magnitude.

Now there are other things like the environment, programs that were total failures like the war on drugs and the star wars program where lots of money was spent with little or no return. But you would never admit such things because you'd find some way of spinning out of it. You'd excuse or apologise for it and say it was nothing.

So once again what's the point?

Attempting to say it was Bush's fault this time and excusing the rest of the republicans who've been running things is just nothing short of lame.

Also you'll forgive me if I think your disagreements here with Mr. Bush haven't exactly stuck out like a sore thumb.;)

1. Never said it was

2. Plenty of debt has been racked up during Dem administrations. In any case, the debt going up cannot be you're only standard for measuring how "things are sliding."

3. Clinton set no such policy. It was the Republican congress that controlled spending.

4. So Clinton's only mistake was the Lewinsky affair? That's a good one. Oh, and again: Tell me what economic policies Clinton put in place that helped the economy become what it was in the late 1990s?

5. Yes, we had a surplus. However, I argue that some of that was unavoidable in the wake of 9/11 and recession. Granted, spending has increased too rapidly. I don't disagree with you there.

6. The national debt is not "good," though it is not currently unmanageable.

7. I didn't say it was all Bush. Not at all.

8. My disagreements have been well documented.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Hey your message did not fall on deaf ears. I am with you with your idea here.

The Republicans and AND that's right I said "and" Democrats are bought off by corporations which have been selling off the interests of the American people for years.

Bought and paid for politicians.

American people sold out.

Corporations cost cutting away American jobs while importing slave labor made products from China etc.

Americans MUST demand government to represent "we the people" not the allmighty corporations and cronies in high places.

Vote out ALL of those who do not represent YOU...

WE NEED TO STOP STARTING WARS TO SECURE OIL SUPPLIES.

WE NEED TAX POLICY TO GIVE INCENTIVE / BREAK TO THE BUYING OF ENERGY SAVING TECHNOLOGIES.

WE NEED TO VALUE MEDICAL CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS.

WE NEED TO PLACE SUPREME IMPORTANCE UPON QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL AMERICAN STUDENTS.

WE NEED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM NOW!

WE NEED MORE THAN JUST TWO PARTIES TO CHOOSE FROM NOW!

LEADERS SHOULD NOT RESORT TO WEDGE ISSUE POLITICS.

LEADERS UNITE THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

LEADERS MAINTAIN COOPERATION WITH THEIR FELLOW ALLIES ABROAD AND REACH CONSENSUS NOT EXTREAMISM.


May God truly Bless this land and free our peoples from the faults and mistakes of this government.

May the American people stand up and DEMAND QUALITY GOVERNANCE.


Fellowship

Al, say hello to Jesse for me when you see him next.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by trailmaster308
I have an idea. Why don't you come down here and we will get some people together that lived through it.....and you tell us all that YOU THINK (cute) that the Federal Government only made one mistake.

Obviously a lot of outrage here. I wonder if you know whom or what you're mad at. If you have specific greivances against the federal response, post them. I am telling you what my opinion is. I cannot read your mind. I agree it's much easier just to scream "THE STATE BETTER TAKE CARE OF US" and be on your way.

[southside grabowski]

http://www.billboardcolorado.us/pics/pic_2006jun01_2404.jpg

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Never said it was

2. Plenty of debt has been racked up during Dem administrations. In any case, the debt going up cannot be you're only standard for measuring how "things are sliding."

3. Clinton set no such policy. It was the Republican congress that controlled spending.

4. So Clinton's only mistake was the Lewinsky affair? That's a good one. Oh, and again: Tell me what economic policies Clinton put in place that helped the economy become what it was in the late 1990s?

5. Yes, we had a surplus. However, I argue that some of that was unavoidable in the wake of 9/11 and recession. Granted, spending has increased too rapidly. I don't disagree with you there.

6. The national debt is not "good," though it is not currently unmanageable.

7. I didn't say it was all Bush. Not at all.

8. My disagreements have been well documented.

As for number 4 what do you think this sentence says? :


" Now Clinton isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. He did plenty of dumb things. "

At least you could be accurate in your rebuttals.

The rest is your usual smoke and mirrors.

Oh by the way Clinton made it clear before he was elected that his priority would be fixing the economy ( you may remember " focusing like a laser beam " and the saying " It's the economy stupid! " ). You can try to give credit for this to someone else but I don't think you can argue the results.


Number six is just stupid.

Also we have a gigantic debt because of Mr. Bush's spending and not anything else. Also you know that every cent that's been lavished on Iraq and it's expensive predecessor was unnecessary. Here we are many years later and what really have they accomplished?

By the way were's the WMD?

And for that matter where's OSBL?

We got Saddam but he didn't destroy the WTC or anything else over here.


About number 2.....Not even in the same ball park as this one.

You're just delusional SDW. I'm just glad not many are still buying this line of reasoning.

[trailmaster308]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Obviously a lot of outrage here. I wonder if you know whom or what you're mad at. If you have specific greivances against the federal response, post them. I am telling you what my opinion is. I cannot read your mind. I agree it's much easier just to scream "THE STATE BETTER TAKE CARE OF US" and be on your way.

No outrage here. Just offering a place for you to sit down and offer up your opinion to some locals. I've read your opinions long enough to understand you dont know jack $hit what your talking about. I'm sure I will get the typical "Please type everything down so we can beat the dead horse some more". Honestly, I'm too tired for all that. I just wanted to pop in hear and say what I had to say.

You watch too much Fox News

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by trailmaster308
No outrage here. Just offering a place for you to sit down and offer up your opinion to some locals. I've read your opinions long enough to understand you dont know jack $hit what your talking about. I'm sure I will get the typical "Please type everything down so we can beat the dead horse some more". Honestly, I'm too tired for all that. I just wanted to pop in hear and say what I had to say.

You watch too much Fox News Hey trailmaster - I'll be more than happy to pitch in for his plane ticket.
:devil:

[midwinter]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Hey trailmaster - I'll be more than happy to pitch in for his plane ticket.
:devil:

Save your money to help send Malkin, Coulter and O'reilly to Iraq. If there's not an organization with this aim, there should be.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by Aurora
The senate has sold out the American people so many times it aint funny,yesterday it was moving all factories to China, tomorrow it will be giving free Social Security to 10 million mexicans while still ignoring the borders. Throw out the Trash! If your California is such a mess throw them out too.

Ain't that the truth. The republicans (congress in general) have been selling this country down the road for years.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
As for number 4 what do you think this sentence says? :


" Now Clinton isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. He did plenty of dumb things. "

At least you could be accurate in your rebuttals.

The rest is your usual smoke and mirrors.

Oh by the way Clinton made it clear before he was elected that his priority would be fixing the economy ( you may remember " focusing like a laser beam " and the saying " It's the economy stupid! " ). You can try to give credit for this to someone else but I don't think you can argue the results.


Number six is just stupid.

Also we have a gigantic debt because of Mr. Bush's spending and not anything else. Also you know that every cent that's been lavished on Iraq and it's expensive predecessor was unnecessary. Here we are many years later and what really have they accomplished?

By the way were's the WMD?

And for that matter where's OSBL?

We got Saddam but he didn't destroy the WTC or anything else over here.


About number 2.....Not even in the same ball park as this one.

You're just delusional SDW. I'm just glad not many are still buying this line of reasoning.

OK, Clinton did some dumb things. I didn't even ask you to list them. I asked you what he did for the economy. And by that, I mean a more specific answer than "he said fixing it would be his priority and then he focused like a laser beam on it."

Number six is stupid? My statement was that the national debt was not "good," but that it was not unamangable. Do you disagree with that, and if so..why?

Every cent was unneccessary? That's quite a claim. First, it assumes federal spending has only increased because of Iraq, which is false. Secondly, it was ALL unneccessary? That's your opinion, but don't label it as fact. Third, are you referening Afgahnistan by the term "predecessor." I suppose that was uneccessary too. I agree federal spending is out of control, but try and be accurate about what the causes are.

As for the debt once again: I still fail to see how that is sole determining factor for your claim of "things sliding."
The debt is rising and rising too fast for my liking. But why don't you just take issue with that and be done? Why try and portray the entire country as going to hell because you disagree with the war and are unahappy about federal spending?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Hey trailmaster - I'll be more than happy to pitch in for his plane ticket.
:devil:

I fail to see why my personally witnessing the devastation would change my mind on the Federal, State and Local response, at least not in your favor.

[FormerLurker]

That's not the point - the point is to hear about the Federal, State, and Local response from the people who actually experienced it, rather than the media or blogs or whatever.

[Corey]

The sad truth is that our government is broken. ALL of our problems boil down to a 98% congressional incumbency rate. We all knew that this was bad, but until this border security issue came along with an overwhelming percentage of Americans wanting the border secured we (the voters) didn't truly realize that our opinions just didn't matter to them anymore.

Here it is an election year and the whole lot of them are flat-out not scared of the voters! They are worried about keeping special interest cash, pork-barrel projects, and other sources of funds so they can buy enough advertising so the masses, most of whom aren't really politically aware, will vote for them.

Sadly, I don't see any way to fix this. Historically I tend to vote Republican as the lesser of two weasels, but this Bush congress is spending money like a terminal cancer patient who has just won the lottery. So next time around I get to choose between Hillary and yet another fake Republican?

The Liberals took control over the Democratic Party years ago. Now the Republicans have completed their sell out to corporate America. Both parties have conspired to keep 3rd parties out and to keep the incumbency rate as high as possible. Seeing as how we Americans have no referendum option, it would appear we are screwed until we hit rock bottom.

As for Bush, I blame the Democrats for him. At least the second time around... I didn't vote for Bush the first time, I voted against Gore (I read Gore's book and so I had no choice.) Bush’s second time around was the Democrats election to loose (as evidenced by the fact that Kerry even came close.) I was fully prepared to vote Democrat and what did I get as an option? Kerry? GAG The Libs have control of the Dem party and so I get a super Liberal one step down from Hanoi Jane as my option?

I, like many people, didn't vote for Bush. We voted against Kerry! If Kerry had gotten in we would still have had a disaster (although granted likely one without 2500 dead soldiers). Kerry would have spent a ton of cash only it would have gone to social handouts and our further slide into socialism (which please note many European countries are tying to get rid of).

Kerry would have stagnated the economy and brought the middle class to the verge of bankruptcy. At least Bush is giving away the farm to American business. It still sux, but the economy is good and I'm well employed which I feel is better than a Kerry presidency would have offered.

In the end, the next election once again is the Democrats to loose. And once again I will have no choice but to vote for the lesser of two weasels. If the Dems want to win big in 08 all they need to do is run a less extreme candidate. If they ran a moderate, they would win in a landslide. Sadly as the Libs control the nomination process in the Dem party we will get another super-lib.

The Repubs on the other hand will have to convince the public that we aren't getting more of the same lies AND run a good candidate on top of that. I can’t wait to hold my nose while I vote yet again…

:grumble:

Between this and the Patriot Act it's starting to look like the book 1984 was just off a few decades.

[Outsider]

That's the craziest rant I ever heard. Just vote for the guy with an R next to his name and the liberal boogie man won't getcha.

[midwinter]

Shorter Corey:

The Republicans just keep sucking at this "governing" thing, but for some reason I keep voting for them!

[Corey]

Sorry... I posted that on a debate board and should have truncated it for the audience.

You're wrong on the "short Corey" though, I am pissed off that there is no one for me to vote for. I don't like what the R's stand for and I don't like what the D's stand for. I had mostly been voting R (at least nationally) because they claimed to want to grow government slower and spend less money on stupid stuff. The last few years have certainly disproved that theory...

Most people in my position just stop voting. Perhaps I have reached that point.

Corey

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
That's not the point - the point is to hear about the Federal, State, and Local response from the people who actually experienced it, rather than the media or blogs or whatever.

Did you experience it? Go ahead. I'm listening.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Did you experience it? Go ahead. I'm listening. No, I didn't, but I've been to NOLA "Post-K" and talked to dozens of people there over the entire social, racial, political, and economic spectrum.

Even lifelong Republicans have nothing but contempt for the Bush administration. They're not exactly happy with anyone State and Local either, but Bush and FEMA are on the top of everyone's $hit list.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
No, I didn't, but I've been to NOLA "Post-K" and talked to dozens of people there over the entire social, racial, political, and economic spectrum.

Even lifelong Republicans have nothing but contempt for the Bush administration. They're not exactly happy with anyone State and Local either, but Bush and FEMA are on the top of everyone's $hit list.

Which lifelong Republicans? How many people did you speak to who met that demographic? The reason they have contempt for the Bush administration is because they have no idea what the Feds role in disaster response is or should be.

I'm going to ask you again: What should have been done differently? I've already said that one thing I think should have been done is the invocation of the Insurrection Act...effectively sending in active duty US military to the area. Martial law should have been declared.

Really...what else should have been done?

[curiousuburb]

You mean active military units like, say, the Louisiana National Guard, with their specialized amphibious vehicles?
... Oh wait... they were in Iraq.

Other things the Feds and FEMA might have done, like, say, listen to the predictions of problems and levee breaches?
... Oh wait... they did hear exactly those warnings - some years before, some weeks before, some days before... and they ignored them.

Things like, say, having actually qualified disaster management folks in charge of FEMA, instead of cronies?
... Oh wait... loyalty apparently matters more than competence to this administration.

Things like, say, using fireman and emergency personnel on site, rather than posing for presidential photo-ops?
... Oh wait... :rolleyes:

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001


Really...what else should have been done?

I never understood why MREs weren't dropped on day one.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by curiousuburb
You mean active military units like, say, the Louisiana National Guard, with their specialized amphibious vehicles?
... Oh wait... they were in Iraq.

Other things the Feds and FEMA might have done, like, say, listen to the predictions of problems and levee breaches?
... Oh wait... they did hear exactly those warnings - some years before, some weeks before, some days before... and they ignored them.

Things like, say, having actually qualified disaster management folks in charge of FEMA, instead of cronies?
... Oh wait... loyalty apparently matters more than competence to this administration.

Things like, say, using fireman and emergency personnel on site, rather than posing for presidential photo-ops?
... Oh wait... :rolleyes:

1. We had the military resources to deal with the immediate aftermath. Nice try with the tired "the guard was in Iraq" line.

2. What warnings? Everyone knew NO was built below sea level and could be wiped out by a big hurricane. How far should we go back with the blame? FEMA, George Bush et al did not know the levees were going to break. They thought they might be topped.

3. Who exactly is a qualified disaster person? This is just rhetoric on your part. Culture of Corruption! Culture of Corruption!

You want to talk incompetence? Fine. Let's talk about the hysterical Blanco's press conferences. Let's talk about Nagin's CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE in not using city and school busses to get people out. Let's talk about the local police force going AWOL. Let's talk about local officials stopping trucks full of water and ice from getting through. The blame for the Katrina response lies primarily on the shoulders of the state and local officials.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by SDW2001
How far should we go back with the blame?

January 20th, 2001.

;)

[midwinter]

Interesting:

The school buses were owned by a private company, and were not under the control of the city, but rather were used under contract to the school district in Orleans Parish. The city had no ability to coerce or force privately-employed school bus drivers, many of whom were likely evacuating their own families, to evacuate New Orleans residents. Nor were there security personnel or medical professionals previously designated to accompany the buses and their passengers. In addition, there were no shelters set up to receive tens of thousands of bus passengers, nor were there specific plans drawn up as to the direction that these buses should head. And finally, given the capacity of the buses and the number of residents still in the city, only a small percentage of those left behind would have been able to leave on those buses.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katr ina#Failure_to_use_city_buses)

[addabox]

Ah, SDW, once again displaying his independence from the Bush Administration Which He Has Many Criticisms Of Until Liberals Attack At Which Point He Would Defend the Suspension of the Constitution and Public Hangings.

It's refreshing.

[trailmaster308]

I think most people here are numb from the whole experience and finger pointing doesn't stir up much emotion anymore. Most peps from Louisiana are very loyal people. We like to stick together and right now we just need some good-ol-fashion good news. (Hell give me some crawfish, hog-head cheese, boudin, and some beer and we be aite). I think the whole event exposed a lot of racial and social problems that must be addressed. I think it exposed a lot of flaws in our emergency response system. I get very angry when I hear somone say "well it wasn't their responsibility". To that I say horse shit! During a national crisis all rules and responsibility go out the door. Drive a damn aircraft carrier up to the Superdome for all I care. I know people that got in flat bottom boats and went down there and saved lives.

No, it wasn't their responsiblity. They did it because it was the right thing to do.

I can say that I have seen local and state officials work to the point of collapse.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by addabox
Ah, SDW, once again displaying his independence from the Bush Administration Which He Has Many Criticisms Of Until Liberals Attack At Which Point He Would Defend the Suspension of the Constitution and Public Hangings. Nice - but you forgot the part where ANYONE criticizing the Bush Administration is a "liberal."

[FormerLurker]

1. We had the military resources to deal with the immediate aftermath. Nice try with the tired "the guard was in Iraq" line. Wikipedia will tell you this: At the time of the hurricane, approximately 3,000 members of the Guard were serving a tour of duty in Iraq. With total personnel strength of 11,000, this meant that 27% of the Louisiana National Guard was away.
While 27% may not sound like all that much to you, it's important to look at what units comprised that 27%. The 209th PSD, which is New Orleans' Unit, was entirely deployed in Iraq. That's the most senior and experienced officers and soldiers - most with significant local knowledge of the city that would have been ext