THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal


Monday, December 26, 2005


See You In 2006

Some dope in that moster thread at Al's blog said that I think I'm smarter than everyone. I don't think I'm smarter than many people. The only people who I honestly think I am smarter than are people who think George Bush is doing a good job as president.

I'm certainly not smarter than Dana who can absolutely eviscerate GOP talking points with his well considered and researched posts at Delawarewatch. I'm also not smarter than Tommywonk who, unlike me, is not constantly trying to throw knockout punches. He is building his case for Democratic government one post at a time. DemVictory2006 is also smarter than me and you will get a sense of that as DemVictory2006 takes over here at Delawareliberal HQ for a while.

Have fun DemVictory2006, I hope you like it.

J - I have deeply held convictions on certain political matters that come from my experience and my instincts, as well as the setting and style of my upbringing. As a result, people would classify me as a fiscally-conservative, socially moderate Republican.

I am a Republican because what I believe makes me a Republican, not because I believe what I'm told I have to to be a Republican. I dislike much of what I see from my own party, but my main complaints are related to pork and spending.

I believe the President is doing a good job. I believe the White House may have stepped over the line with the NSA inititative, but I have reviewed the case work surrounding it, and it is not clear. Nonetheless, I do not like the idea of broadening executive power with no end in sight.

But you can't argue with results. The economy is growing at around 4% per quarter and we have not been attacked again by terrorists on our soil, even though England, Spain and Indonesia have.

My thoughts are not GOP talking points. You are not smarter than me, just as I'm not smarter than you. We just see things differently.

In order to make the nation strong again, we need to elevate the level of discourse; to have firm and passionate debates about the issues without the personal attacks. No wingnuts, no moonbats, no DeLay's a prick, no Schumer's an asshole, none of that.

Let's talk about ideas. Let's come to a compromise. Let's elevate the debate and fix the problem. Conservatives can't do it without liberals, and vice versa.

Have a wonderful New Year.
delathought said:
people would classify me as a fiscally-conservative, socially moderate Republican.

Serious question... How do you reconcile that characterization with support for Bush? Clinton was the last President (and only one in my memory) to sign a balanced budget, not to mention welfare reform. How do fiscally conservative Bush supporters sleep at night?
"Fiscally conservative" and "socially moderate" places you squarely in the Clinton camp, my friend. There are plenty of centrist Democrats who are fiscally to the right of the current administration.

Of course you can argue with results. The GOP was inordinately successful arguing against Clinton's eight years of peace and prosperity. Based on results, we all should have voted for Al Gore in 2000.

I'm as happy as anybody that there have been no major attacks on the US. But after 9/11, I think ANY president would have unleashed the military and intelligence community. However, I think any other president would have done it much more quietly and adroitly than Bush has done, and probably would have won more diplomatic and international support.

I'm also happy the economy is "growing" - that's better than the alternative, of course. But it's not growing because of conservative tax relief. It's growing due to traditional Keynesian stimulus - massive defense spending funded by massive Federal debt. That's liberal, right?

And irrational consumer spending funded by the housing bubble. As Hilary (not my fav Democrat) said, the economy is "standing on a trap door."

Good Lord, what would the GOP have said if these deficits had occured on Bill Clinton's watch?

I'm all for the prospect of a more civil discourse. I haven't made any personal attacks yet, as far as I know. But I must point out it was the GOP's choice, and their winning strategy, to frame the debate as a conflict between liberals and conservatives. If you examine the platforms plank-by-plank, Democrats are centrists, and on most issues are in line with polling of the general population. The Democrats would be considered conservative in other countries. (granted, the Dem leadership seems to trend left, which is not helpful to the party).
I believe I said much of what I dislike about my party relates to pork and spending. I am willing to take the Republicans to task for overspending, and for their part in dragging down the level of statesmanship (although Democrats were happily complicit in the ideological streetfight). I am concerned with the whole of the political discourse in America today.

Anon 11:03 - I think Clinton managed the economy fairly well, although as we all know, the Clinton economy was perched on the internet bubble, and we were on our way into recession by the time Bush took the oath. Bush came in and, after 9/11, he propped the economy up on tax cuts and defense spending, which I don't imagine is sustainable. However, unless entitlement spending is truly overhauled, we're gonna get it someday anyway.

Anon 12:01 - Yes, there are plenty of Democrats who would line up with me on just about every issue, just as there are moderate Republicans that would do the same.

On arguing with results, there is a difference between arguing with economic results, which some say are impacted very little by the President, and arguing with security results. And I have no idea how Clinton's results qualify Al Gore to be President.

I believe the President tried to unleash the intelligence community quietly, but the CIA leaks prevented that. As far as the brash and arrogant nature of our defense under President Bush, I want a strong President. I want a no-bullshit leader when it comes to me being alive or dead. I don't care if certain countries don't sign on to what we do. I don't.

I disagree that tax relief has nothing to do with the current economic growth.

There is no housing bubble. There has been a strong housing market for 5 years, and now it will soften. But nationally, prices have never gone down across the board.

The GOP would have gone nuts with this kind of deficit spending under Clinton. And their excuse that we are at war only partially covers it. There should be sacrifice in pork, entitlement spending and social programs to offset hurricane relief and the war. I believe there should be a Constitutional amendment that limits spending to 98% of federal tax revenues annually, like we have here in Delaware. But that would implode Social Security and Medicare. As well it should.

I disagree on the Democrats being centrist. Although there are centrist Democrats, the DNC's alignment with the abortion-on-demand crowd, the gay marriage crowd and the unions will always pull them to the left, just like the unholy alliance between the RNC, large corporations and hardline evangelical Christian organizations pulls the GOP right. It's funny because if you take out the social politics, I think the economics could be fixed by those RMSP Republicans and the DLC Dems. But the far wings of each party don't want the other party to be able to claim any successes, so compromise dies.
delathought wrote:
As far as the brash and arrogant nature of our defense under President Bush, I want a strong President. I want a no-bullshit leader...

Speaking of no-BS...Do you and other Bush supporters REALLY think Bush honestly thought there were WMDs in Iraq? Was Bush honestly surprised to find no WMDs in Iraq?

To me, as a Bush opponent, the cloud of fear Bush spun around WMDs to justify the invasion was the very definition of BS.

It's pretty well documented that the neocon crowd (Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz) had an agenda for the Middle East that predates the GWB administration. So it seems evident that Bush BS'ed the WMD story to get by Congress and the public. Actually, I believed him about WMDs. It never dawned on me that an American President would lie about something so important.

At this point, it would take a real leap of faith for me to believe that Bush wasn't lying when he said we were invading Iraq to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorists.
Greetings DemVictory2006! Speaking of the economy...

Didja notice the news story today that the yield curve has become inverted?

An inverted yield curve is empirically a a very accurate predictor of slowing economic activity (usually recession) within the next year or so.

Basically the inverted yield curve means a lot of smart people, possibly even including some Republicans, think the economy is going down soon.
"Speaking of no-BS...Do you and other Bush supporters REALLY think Bush honestly thought there were WMDs in Iraq? Was Bush honestly surprised to find no WMDs in Iraq?"

Yes. I think Bush thought there were WMD's in Iraq. So did Clinton. It's been documented that Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people, so I never understood how it was a stretch to think he had more.

Yes. I believe Bush was somewhat surprised to find no WMD's in Iraq. But with the time Saddam had to move them, it's not a shock.

And Anon 2:42, it sounds like you're dangerously close to being happy about the possiblity of a recession. It troubles me that people would enjoy the economy tanking just so they could blame it on Bush.
hmmm... I wonder who the Republicans would blame a recession on?

1. Katrina
2. al-Quaeda
3. Saddam Hussein
4. Liberals
5. Activist judges
6. Clinton
7. anybody-but-Bush
8. Unions
9. Clinton (Hilary)
10. And, my vote for most likely scapegoat... Democrat obstructionists in Congress!!
My whole point from the beginning has been that it shouldn't be about credit or blame. The Republicans would have no one to blame but themselves, just as they should take credit for a string of 4% growth numbers. They're in power.

But it's outlandish to HOPE the economy tanks to score points for or against a political party.
Jason, you are smart enough to constantly get the goat of the GOPer rank and file or they'd not be so adamently trying to pawn you off as a numbskull.

Take a measure of pride and congratulations in their blush of attentions, you are getting to them and that, my friend, is sweet, sweet victory.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]