Journal pudge's Journal: Election Night 21
People have asked me about election night. Some thoughts:
It's going to be nice to be in the minority for awhile, even if the Senate is won by the Democrats. Maybe especially. The Democrats are going to either do nothing, or do crazy things, like try to get universal health care, more gun control, higher taxes, and so on: things Americans clearly do not want.
I am as angry with the GOP in DC as most. They have violated Republican principles many times, over and over, especially in regard to spending, social programs, and so on.
It's not that the country has moved to the left. The country remains divided, but many of those in the middle and on the right are pissed at the GOP. I know lots of people who hate the GOP who voted for them anyway. This is not like the revolution in 1994, where people were exicted at what the GOP could do. In 2006, people (except the existing liberals) are not excited about what the Democrats could do, they simply hate the GOP.
So hopefully this will wake the GOP up. No more compromising on core principles of small government. The problem of social issues -- abortion, stem cells, gay rights -- is not resolved in the GOP by a longshot. But there should be no more question that the GOP must be for actually small federal government. And much of the blame here goes to Bush.
I wish there were some other party other than the Dems to hand control over to. I disagree with them on most things, and think if given half the chance, they will ruin our economy and destroy my liberties. Thankfully, Bush still has the veto for two more years.
It's very unfortunate that many excellent candidates and initiatives lost this year just because of anti-Republican backlash. Doug Roulstone is a far superior candidate to do-nothing Rick Larsen. I-933 would have protected our property rights from the tyranny of the majority and bureaucracy. Mike McGavick would have been an invaluable voice in DC to keeping spending down and coming up with actual solutions to cutting health care costs for everyone.
But, if this convinces the GOP to fix itself, then this one year of big losses is worth it.
silver lining? (Score:1)
via engram [blogspot.com] (who also has convinced me that averaged polls are amazingly predictive [blogspot.com])
GOP (Score:2)
jason
Long Pendulum Swing (Score:2)
I wonder what happens in '08. Do we really have to go through anoher Clinton. The blow job ought to be moderately more interesting this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people believe it is not possible for them to stick to principles. Maybe they are right.
Others believe the GOP principles themselves are terrible. I'll just say that I disagree.
Clearly don't want? (Score:2)
The Democrats are going to either do nothing, or do crazy things, like try to get universal health care, more gun control, higher taxes, and so on: things Americans clearly do not want.
My problem is that while it may be clear Americans don't want these, it's not always clear that Republicans in office don't want them. I see a George W. Bush who compromised with Democrats all the time, and who took us from calling Hillary Clinton a communist for wanting national heathcare all the way to constantly harpi
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. That's my problem, too.
I see a George W. Bush who compromised with Democrats all the time
In what way?
and who took us from calling Hillary Clinton a communist for wanting national heathcare all the way to constantly harping about handing out prescription drug benefits.
Sorry, but no. Bush campaigned on this, before he was ever elected. This is not about compromising wit
Re: (Score:2)
Prescription drug benefits and increasing the federalization of education through No Child Left Behind (a collaboration with Ted Kennedy, for which the right gets all the blame and never any credit for being bipartisan), for two examples.
I am arguing that Bush was a compromiser from the beginning, not that he became one once he got into office. I am not arguing that he compromised his principles -- I am arguing that his
Re: (Score:2)
Both of which are not examples of compromising.
I am arguing that Bush was a compromiser from the beginning, not that he became one once he got into office. I am not arguing that he compromised his principles -- I am arguing that his positions represented a willingness to co
Re: (Score:2)
Both of which are not examples of compromising.
They were certainly great examples of compromises of my principles. Do you support them?
For it to be a compromise, he would have had to give up something he wanted, to get something he wanted. That didn't happen. He got everything he wanted. He cannot compromise the principles of the right that you (and I) feel those policies are against, as he never held those principles to begin with.
I guess what I'm saying is I thought we (I) sent him there to com
Re: (Score:2)
But that is beside the point: we are talking about *BUSH* compromising, which implies compromising his *OWN* principles. And he didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
If I went back to the original post that started all this, and changed the word "compromised" to "collaborated," would that work better? We're now getting into trying to split hairs over what exactly we're talking about, when I'm the one who first used that word. I wasn't addressing compromises in the first place, to the extent that we've gotten into discussing them. I was addressing the fact that while the American people clearly don't want the Democratic Party agenda, it's not so clear about Republican
Re: (Score:2)
What would be the point? How is it interesting to say Bush "collaborated" to get what he wanted?
Both words imply that Bush did not get precisely what he wanted, and what he campaigned on. No Child Left Behind and the Medicare drug plan were his ideas. That's like saying he "collaborated" with Republicans on a tax cut. It doesn't make sense.
I was addressing the fact that
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and another great compromise was, "It would be wrong to fund the destruction of human embryoes for research, if for no other reason than the fact that many of the people contributing the money believe such an act would be murder. But since some embryoes have already been destroyed, and we cannot undo that tragic act, funding research on the results does not commit another atrocity, and we will fund that." I was awestruck by this. I thought it was such an incredibly deft compromise. I seriously thoug
Re: (Score:2)
The neocons are out, to be replaced by the Bush41 conservatives. They'll tell Bush to play ball with the Democrats in hopes of keeping the Presidency in 2008 (good luck, the Democrats are overall better orators). If anything, we'll see MORE collusion between the parties than we did before.
The worst thing about it all is that not a single bill that was proposed seems to have been shut down -- government grew and grew in order to suppor
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
The neocons are out, to be replaced by the Bush41 conservatives. They'll tell Bush to play ball with the Democrats in hopes of keeping the Presidency in 2008 (good luck, the Democrats are overall better orators). If anything, we'll see MORE collusion between the parties than we did before.
No. There were almost no neocons in Congress before. It's "liberal" Republicans, the kind that existed before Reagan (Nixon, Dole, both Bushes, and so on), and Reagan conservatives, the
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Ok -- but what percentage of vetos versus laws-signed does he have? Not significant enough considering the vast majority of bills that were blatantly against the conservative line. I recall the conservatives battling federalized education for most of my life (33 years) and what Bush pursued is horrifically against any definition of conservative.
And all this now is pushing the Reagan conservatives to the front of the pack, because everybody realizes that it is the abandon
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he only vetoed once. So, do the math.
Not significant enough considering the vast majority of bills that were blatantly against the conservative line. I recall the conservatives battling federalized education for most of my life (33 years) and what Bush pursued is horrifically against any definition of conservative.
However, realize that this was him working with the Republicans (well, on NCLB he worked with Dems, but mostly, it was
Re: (Score:1)
Off-topic technical question, pudge: how did I get reply notifications on this and dada21's other message when threading was disabled yesterday and it was impossible to even click reply on my posts, as evidenced by the fact that these posts don't show mine as a parent?
Re:Clearly don't want? (Score:2)
In a two party system, a veto is almsot always attacked in a way that seems logical and moral by the masses, who generally side with one party or the other. If Bush vetos a Democrat bill, the Democrats have a lot of power to say that he is racist or anti-poor or anti-women or anti-whatever. If Bush vetos a Republican bill, he's anti-morals or anti-family or anti-Christ or whateve
Re: (Score:2)
Also, by 1913, many Senators were already elected democratically, before the Constitution was amended. But yes, that (whenever it happened) was a major turning point away from a true Republic and in favor of the very democracy our Constitution was intended to prevent. It wasn't just about sta
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way to fix it any more, unfortunately, because the People are used to the "democracy." I'd love to see a cap on the amount of weeks a Congressman or Senator can work in the system -- say 4 weeks a year. Let them try to force policy through in 1 month rather than sittin