main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

A call for a Conservative revolt against the GOP

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jansons_Funny_Twin, Mar 13, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dizfactor

    dizfactor Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 12, 2002
    I'm not saying they don't. However, if they consistently arrive at the same conclusions as other right-wingers, and seldom if ever come to the same conclusions as non-right-wingers, we can say safely that their analyses have strong right-wing biases.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that (other than the obvious :p), but it's then disingenuous for them to claim that they're coming at each issue from a totally open-minded and unbiased position.

    They're right-wingers (fairly radical right-wingers by many measures), which is one thing if they admit it, and another if they don't.
     
  2. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Excuse me, but what basis do you have to make that claim? I've only been a user here since 2001, and in that time we've only had one president. How can you make any determination of how I actually act under other presidents?

    My position on accusations against anyone, including a president, is based on the old principle of "innocent until proven guilty". When there were reports that Kerry had been an adulterer during the 2004 election (later proven false), I didn't start accusing him of it, nor did I treat the accusations as if they were true. I stated that if they were true, then the people had a right to know (because such information speaks to a person's character), but I also cautioned quite a bit against jumping to conclusions.

    What tends to give that false impression is simply the fact that practically all of the current accusations have been leveled against one party. However, I still make a very real effort to back up everything that I say (or at least be prepared to back it up if someone requests it).

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  3. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    And that's also why I don't like political labels, except when they are used in the narrowest situations.

    When it comes to abortion, I'm personally pro-choice. I personally don't care about the same sex marriage issue either way. I think social policy should be fair to all. I do support an aggressive forgeign policy, and prefer government to be handled at the smallest possible level.

    But I also try and realize that others may hold different views.

    Perhaps my main belief to those who are now labelling me is that generally, I like to see change taken with a deliberate pace, according to an agreement with society.

    If anything, that makes me a traditional conservative with some liberal views, rather than a straight "right winger." (and it's been mentioned in an old thread that the opposite of conservatism is radicalism, not liberalism) But so what?

    And that's the point. As K_K pointed out, we haven't had another administration during my time on the boards to compare how it would relate to my personal philosophy.

    But because I point out that Clinton's main contractor in the Balkans was Halliburton, so maybe there isn't anything sinsiter about Haliburton in Iraq either. . or that the Patriot Act really isn't any different than RICO (which has existed for 40 years, with positives and negatives)- I'm somehow a "puppet of Bush?"

    Because to me, (and I'm just using this as an example)--> if Halliburton has been the main government contractor for decades, it's no surprise that Reagan, Clinton, and now Bush would use them for major operations, and not necessarily because Cheney is evil.

    That's what I mean by examining the situation as it exists.
     
  4. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999

    -Wow, Mr. 44, that's like the most I've ever heard you actually affirmatively state something you believe in rather than question what others are saying! (Not a knock, its just you normally post 'cross-examination' type posts, generally just 'questioning' and 'poking' holes, rather than affirmatively taking a position on anything. And the reason you are getting 'labled' is because that hole-poking is almsot exclusively reserved for defending the Bush administration.)
     
  5. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    I do live to keep you on your toes, OWM...


    (And BTW, if you're curious-I agree with the full guilty verdict found against Ryan. He was corrupt, and hopefully will pay for it.)
     
  6. DARTH-SHREDDER

    DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 6, 2005
    Mr44:

    Because Shedder, where you may be having difficulty in understanding my posts is because I simply want Bush to be treated no differently than any other President.

    But that's what I'm saying - I don't you do treat him no differently from other people. Otherwise, you would agree with the obvious mistakes he's made, that even his biggest supporters will admit.

    And yes, I actually have heard you criticize Clinton before. Maybe not harshly, but I just think that with Bush you want something to be positive and good about it, and with Clinton or somebody else you just tell it for what it really is.

    What's wrong with simply examining the situations as they exist- no matter who the President is? What else do you want me to say?

    So...let me get this straight. You're saying that it's just a coincidence that you happen to never disagree with anything Bush does, and that you're really just looking at the situation objectively?

    Sorry, if you were looking at the situation objectively, you would need to find something that he's done wrong - whether it's the deficit, the Iraq War, his horrible environmental record, his wire-tapping program, whatever. Let me be clear, not that you must condemn all of this those things to be unbaised, or that I'm saying you have to be against all those things to be objective - but just that you think that something was done wrong. So far, I haven't seen you ever criticize him for anything he's done. Defending every last thing he does is an obvious sign of bias, especially for a president who is criticized to the extent our current one is. (before you respond to that last statement, just don't forget about what I said before it)

    You're basically saying that since you don't like the current administration, you view it through that light no matter what the situation actually is. I just can't subscribe to that philosophy.

    When did I say that? I never said you had to hate everything Bush has done of even a lot of it, just that maybe, there was one thing that you didn't like. Besides that, when did I say antything about judging the situation based on who the president is?
     
  7. sellars1996

    sellars1996 Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Three years ago, DS1977 posted a mirror thread about the problems in the Democratic Party. The shoe is on the other foot now ...

    I can't honestly point to one positive thing about W's second administration except for the two Supreme Court picks last year. He has not been a total disaster, but this is not the same man I voted for in 2000. He's not even remotely similar to the governor he was in Texas in the 1990's.

    The GOP is in disarray now, but I am not sure that the Democrats are in much better position.
     
  8. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian Future Films Rumor Naysayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
    Headline at MSNBC: Republican right abandoning Bush. Now I'm not buying into the "doom & gloom" of the headline, but based on my own obervations, I agree with this bit:

    "Conservative voters blame the White House and Congress for runaway government spending, illegal immigration and lack of action on social issues such as a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. Those concerns come on top of public worries about Iraq, the economy and gasoline prices."


     
  9. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    The polls show clearly that the only way to have a lower approval rating than President Bush is to be Michael Jackson or a member of Congress. But this dislike is extending to Democrat incumbants as well as Republicans.
     
  10. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Sometimes I wish everyone in the government got fired, and we all got ordinary but intelligent people elected into Congress. The government needs a fresh start, and be more connected to the people. Politics has become a career, not what it was intended to be I think.
     
  11. liberalmaverick

    liberalmaverick Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 17, 2004
    That's probably because government is a lot more complicated and demanding than it was back in the 1790's.

    I'm surprised conservatives are still complaining about "runaway spending", unless they're talking about the pork, because most of the new discretionary spending has been in something conservatives traditionally like - the military.
     
  12. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    A new Pew Research poll shows declining approval of George Bush among Republicans. Support for Bush among moderate Republicans has declined to 56% from 81% in December 2004. Support for Bush among conservative Republicans has dropped to 78% from 93%.

    Part of this is that Republicans have not yet found much traction on immigration reform and policies to address high gas prices. Now they're turning to gay marriage as a way to bolster the support of social conservatives.

    Apparently, a significant minority of Americans approves of the idea of a constitutional ban on gay marriage. You can imagine what the % is for social conservatives. However, any real push in that direction is going to drive even more moderate Republicans away.

    In other news, looks like Republicans have held on to the 50th district in California by the skin of their teeth, after pouring millions into the special election race. This in a district where Republicans have a 44-29% percent lead over Democrats in voter registration. November will be interesting.
     
  13. ConservativeSoldier

    ConservativeSoldier Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Jabba, with regard to the California district, Bilbay received 54% of the vote. Cunningham received 56% of the vote in 2004. So, it was a 2% drop-off from '04, which is negligible.

    The "culture of corruption" charge that the Democrats have been launching doesn't seem to be...sticking.

    That said, I agree that the GOP has become lethargic in its obligations to its constituents. That happens when you're in power for as long as the GOP has been.

    There's a lot that a conservative (like me) has to complain about--including immigration, spending, Federal gay marriage amendment (it's a state issue, not a federal one), and the weak-kneed approach toward Iran.

    Should conservatives revolt against the GOP? No. That would only serve to put the socialist Dems in power.

    Should conservatives kick the GOP in the tail a few times? Yes. And without hesitation.
     
  14. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Specter is complaining that Dick Cheney colluded with members of the judiciary committee to make an agreement behind Specter's back to prevent telephone companies from testifying in front of the committee about their involvement in handing domestic phone records over to the NSA.

    What you're seeing now is a building war between the leadership of the executive and legislative branches. There isn't going to be a conservative revolt against the GOP, only a legislative revolt against the Bush administration to try to get some distance between Congress and Bush's declining popularity.

    But that does nothing to address Congress's declining popularity now affecting both parties. Don't thing for a minute that a gain in social conservatives' influence over the GOP will help that problem.
     
  15. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    My prediction is, GOP controls the House but by a very narrow margin, and the Senate is essentially split with one or two seats throwing it the way of the GOP or the Dems, (the Grand OLDER Party.) Both parties will claim victory, the Dems for gaining so much ground, the GOP for maintaining a slim majority in one or two houses of Congress.

    So on the whole, the Demcrats will gain a lot of ground, claiming victory, but the GOP will not quite be put out of power, so they too will claim victory.
     
  16. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Bilbay received 54% of the vote. Cunningham received 56% of the vote in 2004. So, it was a 2% drop-off from '04, which is negligible.

    Unless I am misreading, according to the following link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_Busby#Special_election_and_runoff

    Billbray received 49.33 percent to Busby's 45 percent, as opposed to Cunningham?s 57-38 victory in 2004.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.