ABSENTEE CONSERVATIVES ? - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
As we move closer to election day 2006 there is a growing concern by many Republicans and a concentrated effort by the liberal media in speculation that because of discontent with the GOP the conservative base will stay home on election day as a punishment for the majority drifting away from the conservative agenda. This speculation is being reported as an effort by the base to bring a wake up call to the GOP by not voting thus giving House control to the Democrats as a reminder to the current majority of why they were voted into office in the first place. Many political pundints such as Dick Morris have followed this line of thinking and I have heard several disgruntled Republicans on talk shows express it to the host and one Host in particular Neal Boortz out of Atlanta who votes Republican because of the war but politically affiliates himself as a Liberatarian is actually encouraging this voting boycott by conservatives. Of course the Democrats are jumping on this band wagon for good reason because the more conservative GOP voters who remain home on elelction day the better their chances at the House and Senate. Though there is a school for this thought and it is recieving a good bit of air play both in radio and television there is one good reasons why it should not happen and several why I don't believe it will happen. Sure there will be a few disgruntled conservatives who choose to follow this idea but as a whole I do not see it happening. Why?
First the one good reason why it should not happen. This is obvious. A general boycott by disgruntled conservatives on election day would pretty much insure at least a Demcorat House and quite possibly Senate or at least a Senate with such a slim GOP majority that majority status will make little difference in the Senate legislative process. For the next two years at least this nation would be subject to legislation that is in total conflict with conservatives. While the GOP majority has been a dissappointment in many ways they are not in absolute conflict with conservative values and priorities as would be the case with a Democrat majority. Another legislative problem that a Democrat House would propose besides the fact that liberalism would be in charge, is basically a stoppage to the governing process. I realize that to many this would not be a bad idea but especially with troops in harms way the daily grind of government is necessary. While Demcorats in the House would propose and pass legislation in accordance to a liberal agenda when the bill reaches the Senate even with a slim GOP majority passage is not likely and anything contrary to the Bush agenda will recieve Presidential veto and there would not be a veto proof majority to override. Additionally as has been stated in previous posts the House would tie up the White House with a constant barrage of investigation under the false belief that the administration has conducted illegal activities. John Conyers would have his impeachment bill which is already prepared passed and we will suffer through two years of endless and needless fulfillment of the lefts need for retrobution because of the false contention that 2000 and 2004 were stolen elections. Cut and run would be the House cry and taxes will raise as has already been promised and not to just the top 2% as has been falsley claimed but across the board as Charlie Rangel who is honest in his taxation comments has stated.
There are several reason why I believe this boycott is more a left wing and media created situation than a reality. First, conservatives realize all of the reasons that I have already stated and understand the consequences of a Demcorat House even for two years. Conservatives also understand the necessity of protecting our nation and the need for strong security. The cut and run rhetoric by Democrats and the general opinion by the left in the negative concerning the war not just Iraq but across the board if implimented will weaken national security and as such the conservative base will vote if for nothing else to try to stop this from happening under Democrat control.
Second, while I have stated time and again my mistrust of polling there are trends that show conservatives are not planning on staying home. A very interesting situation has also appeared in the district of former Congressman Mark Foley. Even the GOP leadership has stated that this is a , "lost, " seat yet despite the Foley, "scandal, " Joe Negron has a slim lead in some polls and tied in most. Again I do not trust polling because it can and is maniplulated but even with this in mind for Negron to show this strong after only three weeks on the campaign trail is an accomplishment that proves that Republicans and especially conservatives realize that the Foley flak was the action of one man and not a party and issues are more important than scandal in the voting process.
Third, available campaign funds are well in favor of the GOP which will only energize the base as campaign ads will remind conservatives of why we vote. A report surfaced last week concerning the DNC receiving a loan of several million dollars to use in certain Senate campaigns because the coffers were empty. Chuck Schumer in New York has been crying for funds for some time and the DNC has not had them available. Additionally in every district and Senate campaign the GOP candidate has out distanced the Democrat opponent in fund raising. Nationally the RNC too has far out distanced the DNC. I do not bring up this fact to imply that the GOP is buying the election but to show that the base is involved and energized in this election contrary to media hype. It is a proven fact that campaign contributions come from the base and loyal party members. With the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Bill limiting the amount of individual and corporate political contributions the fact the GOP coffers are full show a marked involvment and interest in the election by the conservative base.
Fourth and lastly is the Reagan example. Conservatives rightfully so look to President Reagan as the father of the conservative movement. Most conservatives especially those of us in the baby boom generation can trace much of our conservative core back to the Reagan years. Ronald Reagan instilled in us a political optimism that makes it against out nature and political instincts to throw in the towel. I can almost hear him coming up with a typical Reagan analogy to this boycott idea like, " If you don't like the way the rooster crows do you give the hen house to the fox ?" President Reagan always fought for his beliefs and never gave in to conventional thought or opposition challenges. He stood strong against the Soviet Union inspite of the conventional wisdom that it would cause a stronger and more potent USSR creating a greater danger and he was proven right when the wall fell. Conservatives today are not defeatests and we do not just give in to the , "conventional wisdom, " of staying home and giving up the House as a punishment to the GOP. The stakes are too great and the fight is not over and like Reagan we are not just giving up. We are energized and though dissapointed with the majority understand that our voice and activism is strong enough to be heard and help shape the agenda. It is the conservative base following the Reagan example that made the GOP the strong party that it has become and it is the conservative base that will give this party its direction as we express our voice by our vote and our message to Congress when they return to Washington. This optimism and conservative strength is why the GOP will retain the majority in both Chambers of Congress and because of our voice the GOP will listen.
Ken Taylor
First the one good reason why it should not happen. This is obvious. A general boycott by disgruntled conservatives on election day would pretty much insure at least a Demcorat House and quite possibly Senate or at least a Senate with such a slim GOP majority that majority status will make little difference in the Senate legislative process. For the next two years at least this nation would be subject to legislation that is in total conflict with conservatives. While the GOP majority has been a dissappointment in many ways they are not in absolute conflict with conservative values and priorities as would be the case with a Democrat majority. Another legislative problem that a Democrat House would propose besides the fact that liberalism would be in charge, is basically a stoppage to the governing process. I realize that to many this would not be a bad idea but especially with troops in harms way the daily grind of government is necessary. While Demcorats in the House would propose and pass legislation in accordance to a liberal agenda when the bill reaches the Senate even with a slim GOP majority passage is not likely and anything contrary to the Bush agenda will recieve Presidential veto and there would not be a veto proof majority to override. Additionally as has been stated in previous posts the House would tie up the White House with a constant barrage of investigation under the false belief that the administration has conducted illegal activities. John Conyers would have his impeachment bill which is already prepared passed and we will suffer through two years of endless and needless fulfillment of the lefts need for retrobution because of the false contention that 2000 and 2004 were stolen elections. Cut and run would be the House cry and taxes will raise as has already been promised and not to just the top 2% as has been falsley claimed but across the board as Charlie Rangel who is honest in his taxation comments has stated.
There are several reason why I believe this boycott is more a left wing and media created situation than a reality. First, conservatives realize all of the reasons that I have already stated and understand the consequences of a Demcorat House even for two years. Conservatives also understand the necessity of protecting our nation and the need for strong security. The cut and run rhetoric by Democrats and the general opinion by the left in the negative concerning the war not just Iraq but across the board if implimented will weaken national security and as such the conservative base will vote if for nothing else to try to stop this from happening under Democrat control.
Second, while I have stated time and again my mistrust of polling there are trends that show conservatives are not planning on staying home. A very interesting situation has also appeared in the district of former Congressman Mark Foley. Even the GOP leadership has stated that this is a , "lost, " seat yet despite the Foley, "scandal, " Joe Negron has a slim lead in some polls and tied in most. Again I do not trust polling because it can and is maniplulated but even with this in mind for Negron to show this strong after only three weeks on the campaign trail is an accomplishment that proves that Republicans and especially conservatives realize that the Foley flak was the action of one man and not a party and issues are more important than scandal in the voting process.
Third, available campaign funds are well in favor of the GOP which will only energize the base as campaign ads will remind conservatives of why we vote. A report surfaced last week concerning the DNC receiving a loan of several million dollars to use in certain Senate campaigns because the coffers were empty. Chuck Schumer in New York has been crying for funds for some time and the DNC has not had them available. Additionally in every district and Senate campaign the GOP candidate has out distanced the Democrat opponent in fund raising. Nationally the RNC too has far out distanced the DNC. I do not bring up this fact to imply that the GOP is buying the election but to show that the base is involved and energized in this election contrary to media hype. It is a proven fact that campaign contributions come from the base and loyal party members. With the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Bill limiting the amount of individual and corporate political contributions the fact the GOP coffers are full show a marked involvment and interest in the election by the conservative base.
Fourth and lastly is the Reagan example. Conservatives rightfully so look to President Reagan as the father of the conservative movement. Most conservatives especially those of us in the baby boom generation can trace much of our conservative core back to the Reagan years. Ronald Reagan instilled in us a political optimism that makes it against out nature and political instincts to throw in the towel. I can almost hear him coming up with a typical Reagan analogy to this boycott idea like, " If you don't like the way the rooster crows do you give the hen house to the fox ?" President Reagan always fought for his beliefs and never gave in to conventional thought or opposition challenges. He stood strong against the Soviet Union inspite of the conventional wisdom that it would cause a stronger and more potent USSR creating a greater danger and he was proven right when the wall fell. Conservatives today are not defeatests and we do not just give in to the , "conventional wisdom, " of staying home and giving up the House as a punishment to the GOP. The stakes are too great and the fight is not over and like Reagan we are not just giving up. We are energized and though dissapointed with the majority understand that our voice and activism is strong enough to be heard and help shape the agenda. It is the conservative base following the Reagan example that made the GOP the strong party that it has become and it is the conservative base that will give this party its direction as we express our voice by our vote and our message to Congress when they return to Washington. This optimism and conservative strength is why the GOP will retain the majority in both Chambers of Congress and because of our voice the GOP will listen.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 9:50 AM
42 Comments:
Wishful thinking Ken. The House looks like it will turn over. I still don't see the Senate turning over.
There is no conspiracy to try to keep conservatives from voting, there are three reasons they are fed up with their elected leaders:
1. Iraq - there is no question it is a mess.
2. Foley/Corruption - it is obvious that the Republican Congress is a cesspool of corruption.
3. Spending/Debt/Deficit - the fiscal conservatives realize that these are not Reagan conservatives.
Ken & Rob, don't think the so-called republicans will relinquish power so easily just because of a mere election.
Mudkitty, why assume the worst? Let's see what happens before casting aspersions and questioning results.
Because Rob, like the Boy Scouts motto; "Always be prepared."
Why do you think? For the fun of it? Really.
Again I object to the use of the term "conservative" to describe the author's or their sentiments. The author of the piece is not conservative, but rightwing. Conservatism is an anathema to the GOP. For the last 5 years, true conservatives have already been subjected to legislation that is in conflict with what conservatism is supposed to be.
If the belief is that the Bush Administration did nothing illegal, then open the windows, and let in the sunshine. Surely you rightwingers have nothing to fear? If there's nothing to investigate, there's nothing to fear from an investigation, right? Or at least that's what you wingnuts pretended during all 8 years of the Clinton Administration.
And gridlock is something rightwingers just love when dems are in power.
The Author actually put words in Reagan's mouth, replete with quotes! Give the hen house to the fox? Too late. The fox bought the hen house via emminent domain a long while back.
(The "wall fell" during Bush, not Reagan, btw, and it didn't actually fall; it was torn down by Beatle-singing hippis.)
*****
"I do not bring this up to prove that the GOP is buying the election..." well if you have to say it... Rather unseemly, to say the least. Check your wallets folks.
*****
The basic premise, that the GOP is strong on national security, or anything else for that matter, is not a conservative notion, but a crazy notion at this point, given the evidence of the last 5 1/2 years.
Trust me, no democrat is taking this so-called "boycott" seriously, much less jumping on any bandwagon other than voting the republicans out of office (but fear not rightwingers, your guys will just end up on K-street.)
America wants a change in direction.
Mudkitty, you have a right to your opinion but I know what my beliefs are and I also know how I look at the issues etc. I have been a conservative since I first voted in the 1976 election and have voted as a conservative since.
I did not, "put words, " into President Reagan's mouth I only suggested something that in accordance to what his character was he might say in this type of situation.
Although the wall actually fell during Bush 41 which is a historical fact my post does not state otherwise. I stated that Reagan was, "proven right when the wall fell."
Rob, Whether you accept it or not there is a concentrated effort to continualy suggest that conservatives will stay home on election day. If you choose to call it a conspiracy, then so be it. I do not sees it as that but there is a genuine effort in the media to continually suggest this.
By the way optimism is also a conservative trait and Reagan was a great proponent of this. I am confident and optimistic about this election from trends, etc that I am seeing.
Though we Reagan conservatives see that the party and leadership has drifted in many ways from a conservative agenda, it will not discourage us from voting and we also realize that when we raise our voice the GOP does listen. Additionally there will be a new majority leader in the Senate because Frist is not running in this election to prepare for a Presidential bid in which I don't think he has a chance.
Gee... You found Mudkitty... someone who makes Rob seem reasonable by comparison.
I won't even waste any time with him/her/it. It's another example of someone who is NOT a conservative trying to define conservatism. Obviously he/she/it has gotten stuck in the Democrat spin cycle a bit too long.
Ken: I do agree that this "boycott is more a left wing and media created situation than a reality." If anyone claiming to be a conservative thinks handing the House over to the Dems is a good idea, I'd go check their voting record and financial contributions.
The "report" that evangelicals will sit this one out is also crap. The "news" people who print such stuff have likely never been inside an evangelical church. They probably got this scoop from the same Democrats who held onto the Mark Foley IM's for years until they could use them for their October surprise.
Ken Mehlman reports that the RNC averaged 8,256 contributions for each deposit day so far this year with 362,000 new donors this cycle. That's a record. Hardly what you would expect if conservatives were sitting this one out.
What do you bet that these so-called "conservatives" who are now complaining have never volunteered for a campaign, nor do they contribute?
Ironically as you were commenting here on this subject I was commenting at your blog.
Agreed conservatives are energized and the record contributions evidence this. True conservatives understand what is at stake in every election and we are not people who throw in the towel. Those who are talking about not voting are not involved in the first place as you mentioned.
That's not ironic, the posting at each other's blogs...it coincidence. More proof that rightwingers lack a sense of irony, as it is so often said.
So what you're really saying is, if republicans do lose, that will be Clinton's fault, the media's fault, liberals fault, my fault, anybody's fault but your own.
Vern, you mean the same democrats in your fantacy?
Unless of course you have evidence that the democrats even had access to Foley's IM's, much less held on to them.
Evidence people!
Vern, I suppose you think that Foley and Hastert just gave the Democrats Foley's IMs?
Sorry Vern. Next time I'll try to be a little less dense.
BTW - Emerson was a liberal.
"1. Iraq - there is no question it is a mess."
But most voters still don't trust Democrats with the job.
2. Foley/Corruption - it is obvious that the Republican Congress is a cesspool of corruption.
As is the Democratic Party, which is about to take a nasty hit with the Murtha scandal. It couldn't have happened to a better and more powerful target.
"3. Spending/Debt/Deficit - the fiscal conservatives realize that these are not Reagan conservatives."
Amen to that.
"Your mischaracterization of the democratic platform and your baseless assertions that dems are weak on national security aren't supported by any historical evidence or any careful analysis of what they ACTUALLY SAY"
We go by their voting record. Democrats, by their own record, are horribly weak on national security. Democrats never win on the issues. America supports true conservatism every time. (now if we could just find some true conservatives...) But most Republican voters are all talk. They aren't going to stay at home, they're going to show up and vote, because they're deathly afraid of the alternative, as well they should be. In my opinion, this election, no matter who wins, is going to be a mess. Something I think everyone can agree on. There is no great prize candidate that I see.
The only reason there are any voters who don't trust democrats as to National Securtity is that the GOP has brainwashed their base on that silly notion for over 45 years. But the facade is crumbleing. The GOP has PROVEN that they can't handle the job. Now it's up the dems to once again clean up the republican mess.
I wouldn't count on the so-called Murtha scandal...he never took any money...it's on tape, I've seen the tape several times. But by your standards, every single republican would be in jail, if that were the case. The GOP tried to instituionalize and decriminalize bribary under Tom Delay.
Fiscal conservatives, Social conservatives, libertarians, Reagan conservatives...religious rightwingers...plus the craven leadership...The Ralph Reeders (and you know who you are...) - all I can say to you all is you can't fool all the people, or even enough of the people, all the time. You guys are nothing but a bunch of waring factions with the only thing in comman being a distate for fellow Ameicans like myself. Fear, fear, fear, is all you've got to run on. Fear of terrorism (which is fear of fear itself) fear of democrats, equateing people who disagree with you to terrorists...that's all you've got left.
And who are you going to run (in 08?) Jeb. Oh, that'll go over big...the whole closet royalist thing. McCain? The base hates him, you know that as well as I do. Gulianni - same deal as McCain, only more so. Allen...? That's not going to work, at least not in '08. That guys shows seriously bad political judgement, in addition the racism thing that will forever, and I mean forever, dog him.
As for the records, it turns out now, that the record shows, just how bad the GOP and rightwingers are at running wars and at National Security.
You Republican are wrong about National Security. It's now a proven fact. And with each and everyday, more and more of you are realizing that, even if it's embarrasing to admit how wrong you can be about matters of life and death. But for those with an ounce of true compassion, not some speical fake form of conservative compassion, you will feel the tugs of concience.
Like Dr. Phil says, you can't fix what you don't acknowledge.
And then there's Romney...he could work for you guys, but he's a Mormon. The base doesn't like Mormons. But he's extreamly right, as is the fashion with the GOP these days, and he's extreamly photogenic.
And there's Huckabee...but he's a bit of a lose cannon. But his weight loss story makes him very apealing - but other than that, he's a lightweight - pun intended (sorry.)
Who am I leaving off? Throw some names at me, and I'll tell you how there fare.
I’ve read many meaningless comments that merely obfuscate (intentionally?); so I’ll be succinct…
What clearly is the Democratic plan for the following issues?
1 Winning the war against radical Jihadists
2 Border security
3 Dealing with the illegal aliens
4 Improving the economy
5 Lowering taxes
6 Saving the social security program
7 Lowering medical care costs
8 Reducing welfare dependency
I have not heard the same plan articulated twice by Democratic candidates and I wonder what the resident Democratic supporters belief their plan to be.
Old Soldier and Highboy, we can go back and forth, but you know what, the voters will decide on all of these issues in 2 weeks.
It seems clear to me that Dems will make gains in the House, Senate, and Governors' mansions. We will have to see, but if that proves true on election day, it would clearly indicate that the voters have more faith in Dems.
Like I have said, I expect the House to turn over, but the Senate to remain in Republican control albeit with a much smaller majority.
Rob, hasn't the Democratic Party presented a position by which you can clearly articulate responses to the 8 issues I listed? I know clearly where the GOP stands, and so do you; which I believe is part of the Democrat's problem.
I have no problem with the positions of the Dems and I could write a dissertation on each of the 8 items. If you have followed my postings on this and other sites (including my own), you know my differences with Republicans and where I agree and disagree with Dems.
But again, we could go back and forth forever - the bottom line is the voters will decide. I am comfortable with the will of the people.
The democratic position on Old Soldiers pet issues are as follows:
1.)The war against radical jihadists (ie. a bunch of religious nuts): start by
useing truthfull intel instead of lying to the American people about phoney WMDs, or other some such. Once the lying stops, the first order of business is to catch Bin Laden, and his co-horts, and bring him to justice in front of the entire world...like in Nurenberg. Focus the war on terror in Afganistan and parts of Packistan, where Bin Laden has been given a home.
2.)Border Security. It's borders, plurel, folks. Democrats believe we need to tighten up both borders and not just the ones that the brown people are coming thru so that Republicans can make the most of a period of cheap labor.
We believe that the Occupaion of Iraq is not only a distraction from the war on jihadists, but a distraction from dealing with our borders. National Security starts at home and starts with our borders. Both of them.
3.) Dealing with undocumented workers: Higher wages for documented workers...that's easy. Stronger unions, also.
4.) Improving the economy - the entire 20th century is the history of Democrats having to rescue the economy from republican blunders, and in doing so, coming out on top. Democrats have already proven that we're better at the economy. We always lower taxes on the middle class, and provide incentives for the middle class, and for higher education, but not on the top 2 percenters. Democrats will strenthen Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade by fulling funding them, and reminding the American People what great social programs they are when they aren't being run into the ground by republicans. We will provide tax incentives for small busines, and large businesses that don't outsource their workforce to other countries. This is just for starters.
5.) Lowering taxes, covered in # 3. When you lower taxes on the middle class everybody benifits, and history has proved that. What we have now is a feudal system, a plutocracy.
6)Saving the Social Security Program - fully fund it, get behind it philosophically, and stop knocking it. It there's a shortfall, frigging fund it.
7.) Lowering medical costs? Single payer, the proven solution.
8.)Reducing welfare depedency - democrats already did that under Clinton's Welfare Reform Bill, But you automaticly reduce welfare dependecy if you take the above enumerated steps, merely by improving the economy, and returning us to the path of peace and prosperity. And whereby the people in power aren't trying to raid the treasury, and spill the blood of our boys and girls for the sake of Halliburton.
Another way to reduce Welfare Dependency is to increase beifits to Veterans and their families.
*****
But Old Soldier - you knew all this, this has always been the democratic position since FDR and the New Deal. To pretend that Democrats don't have an agenda is to be disingenuous.
It's always difficult for Dems to enact our agenda, because we're to busy fighting off smears, and cleaning up republican messes, like the Occupation of Baghdad.
As for myself, I expect the exit polls to reflect Democrat, and the Diebold result to reflect Republican.
Well OS - I answered your 8 questions, thoughtfully and respectfully, I might add. If you won't respond, will you at least stop pretending to yourself that Dems don't have any positions? I know it's the popular talking point being diseminated by the GOP - but that's only because our postitions are so strong, and the republican screw ups are so bad, that the GOP can't get away with demonizing the dems positions anymore.
Mudkitty, your facts are becoming somewhat confusing because you continue to claim that the Democrats clean up the messes of the GOP. The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 (yes, signed by Clinton) was a GOP pushed piece of legislation being voted very heavily against by - you guessed it - Democrats.
House Vote Results
Senate Vote Results
Mudkitty quit being stupid. According to all the polls, the only Democrat that has any hope of standing a chance against Guilianni or Mcain is Hillary, and she comes in a distant third behind the two of them. Nice try. The Republicans have PROVEN that they are willing to defend the nation, while Democrats have PROVEN that they will not. Your party's atrocious record on national security speaks for itself. You are defending the indefensible.
"I wouldn't count on the so-called Murtha scandal"
In case you've missed it, Irey has closed the gap in polls quite considerably, and Irey's campaign is gaining more and more steam. What your opinion of the scandal is irrelavent, unless your from PA. PA is sick of Murtha.
"We will have to see, but if that proves true on election day, it would clearly indicate that the voters have more faith in Dems."
Why? You won't win the senate and you won't win in '08. Gaining a couple of seats in the House hardly constitutes the shift in opinion that you liberals claim. That is a Democratic pipe dream and gains you nothing. You'll need 2/3 of the House to undo the many vetoes Bush will signing on every bill you try to have passed. You won't get it.
OS: Mudkitty forgets (willingly) that 7 out of 10 bills that Clinton gets credit for signing were Gingrich bills that the Dems voted against. His history is somewhat confused. Democrats want MORE welfare not less. They need to keep the poor in poverty. Otherwise they'd have no voter base.
"6)Saving the Social Security Program "
The program that we can't afford that will be bankrupt soon. That is the liberal Democrat m.o. though isn't it? "You are too stupid to save your own money for yourself. Better let us politicians save it for you. You'll get it back, trust me."
Highboy - you actually think polls today reflect what will happen in 2008? Let's just cancel the 2008 election.
I have said that the House will turn over and Dems will pick up Senate seats. I also believe there will be Democratic pickups in the governor's mansions. If that is true, that means the country is trending Democratic.
If Bush wants to pull out the veto pen, that is cool with me. It means that there will be some slowing of government spending - which is increasing at a record pace under this President. The U.S. National Debt has exploded as a result. I welcome the veto pen if for no other reason than to slow down our ridiculously high rate of debt accumulation.
As for Social Security - it is not going bankrupt until at least 2041. That is according to the Social Security Administration. Something needs to be done about it but please don't try to make it into a pressing crisis - it just isn't a crisis. The reason Bush wants to "fix" it is so that more money can flow to Wall Street and corporate interests.
http://www.ssa.gov/finance/2005/Highlights_of_Fin_Position.pdf
You can copy and paste the link to your browser and read the SSA's own financial statement.
Social Security will never be bankrupt as long as we as Americans agree to fund it.
Actually, the Welfare Reform Act was written by the Clinton Administration, objected to by some dems, but not enough to get it passed. That is the fact. It's a LIE to say that Democrats want more "Welfare" than less. We democrats want exactly the right amount, no more no less. Because the "welfare of the people" is written into the first stanza of the Constitution of the United States of America. And if you don't believe me, then I suggest you go look it up.
BTW - Highboy, I honestly don't think you meant to do this, but you attributed a quote to me that I never said or wrote. Go back and check. The "We will have to see" quote. Republicans like to conflate things.
Another thing: I never said the Dems would "win" back the house or the senate. Ever. Please stop putting words in my mouth, again. I'm rather skeptical about that, because I don't put it passed the GOP to pull rabbits out of Deibold hats.
HighGuy, you can't be serious about the base being for either McCain or Guliani, and without the base, ie. the religious right, the bottom drops out of the GOP voting machine...that's where Deibold comes to the rescue... Are you saying, Mr. High, that you would vote for a pro-gay civil rights candidate?
Or are you republicans such haters that you'll vote for a coffee table before you'll vote for a proclaimed democrat?
If you were in Conn. are you saying you wouldn't vote for the Republican Party Candidate, that you would vote for Lieberman, who you really hate, just out of spite?
The 7 out of 10 bills is statement is just false. And if it were true that Clinton signed 7 out of 10 "republican" bills, why would you guys hate him so much? It's completely illogical.
Rob - Social Security is not going to go bankrupt as long as I have a breath in my body.
As much as the GOP, Rightwing Republicans want Social Security to go bankrupt, it's just not going to happen.
I realized I wrote something incorrect about the Clinton Welfare bill...correction: some dems were against it, but not enough to STOP it from getting passed, in what was then hailed as a bi-partisan effort. Later on the GOP tried, of course, to take credit for it; as the GOP are masters at one thing, and one thing only. They are masters at revisionist, downright Orwellian history.
Mudkitty, another question that I have is whether you have a blog of your own or just post comments as many do? I'm curious because I would like to view your thoughts through what you post and possibly spotlight as Blog of the Week as I did Rob so that conservatives who come to this site can see how the other side thinks besides just through comments.
Well, I guest blog sometimes on other sites, but no, I don't have my own site. I am involved in non-politcal writing, if there is such a thing, and so if I had my own blog...well, you can imagine. (Plus I work for a living as well.) But I would be willing to contribute a polite essay on the topic of your choosing, if you should be of such a disposition.
I think it is a good idea to present actual liberal views to the right, rather than the rightwings (distorted, in my view) interpretation of liberal views. And I am particularly interested in reminding people what classical liberalism actually is, and actually means.
You got my #. Let's talk.
"Are you saying, Mr. High, that you would vote for a pro-gay civil rights candidate?
Or are you republicans such haters that you'll vote for a coffee table before you'll vote for a proclaimed democrat?"
Depends on the Democrat. Hillary? I'll absolutely vote for Rudy or McCain before I vote for Hillary. But Hillary has the same problem they do: she pissed her base off. As for your tin foil hat GOP conspiracy theories, they're not even plausible enough to respond to.
"Social Security is not going to go bankrupt as long as I have a breath in my body."
That's funny, because Clinton disagreed with you.
No Clinton didn't; he knew we Americans could (and will) fund it, and so did/does Gore. Bushie came along and raided what should have been in a lock box, that's all.
Come Highboy, you may be high, but I have faith in you that you can do better than that.
You're absolutly right, though, about Hillary pissing of the base on our side. That's why she's not running for president in '08, inspite of what rightwingers think, or hope. She will be the candidate for vice-president. The base will be able to stomache that. You heard it here.
So who you got? Who are you going to run Highboy?
Hey Gayle, tickle tickle, I love you...
We Americans will fund Social Security because it is the right thing to do.
"No Clinton didn't;"
You're simply wrong. In 1998 Clinton brought up the exact same points concerning social security that Bush did. Everyone but you knows this.
"We Americans will fund Social Security because it is the right thing to do."
Americans will continue to have money taken from their check toward social security because they have no say in the matter. The government already determined them too stupid to save their own money, which is why we have no choice. Even those who are actually responsible enough not to rely on the government to take care of them and manage their money are still forced to fund it.
The government never determined that anybody is "too stupid." That is an ugly projection of your own making. It's some odious idea you came up with on your own. It comes from within you.
What you call "Welfare" is actually called "Aid To Families With Dependent Children" AFDC, and it has saved many families from being torn apart.
That's right, Americans will still pay taxes whether they like it or not...damn hillbilly. And thanks to Social Security, you wont be as much of a burden on society when illness kills your wife, and your own illness eats up all your savings and investments...and your children have financial problems all thier own...good luck Mr. Compassionette Conservative!
Very nice! I like it. beverly hills doctor
Post a Comment
<< Home