The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Disaffected Republicans? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=4806)

Griff 01-16-2004 07:33 AM

Disaffected Republicans?
 
Kevin Phillips hammers the Bush family in his new book. I run into the occasional conservative who is upset by the Bush presidency citing fiscal irresponsibility, protectionism, or war mongering. His numbers are still holding up but Is there any kind of a groundswell of discontent in the party?

Its interesting that Phillips used to defend the GOP on NPR but has been replaced by the neo-con nutball, Canadian speech writer David Frumm. I wonder who makes the call on that?

Undertoad 01-16-2004 07:50 AM

I think this is the case. Yesterday for example, Andrew Sullivan made this entry:

Quote:

LET THE KIDS PAY FOR IT: I'm talking about this $170 billion foray into space. After all, the next generation will be paying for a collapsed social security system, a bankrupted Medicare program, soaring interest on the public debt, as well as coughing up far higher taxes to keep some semblance of a government in operation. But, hey, the president needed another major distraction the week before the Iowa caucuses, and since he won't be around to pick up the bill, why the hell not? Deficits don't matter, after all. And what's a few hundred billion dollars over the next few decades anyway? Chickenfeed for the big and bigger government now championed by the Republicans. This space initiative is, for me, the last fiscal straw. There comes a point at which the excuses for fiscal recklessness run out. The president campaigned in favor of the responsibility ethic. He has governed - in terms of guarding the nation's finances - according to the motto: "If it feels good, do it." I give up. Can't they even pretend to give a damn?

Undertoad 01-16-2004 08:09 AM

But it appears to be balanced by converts the other direction, aka Dennis Miller:
Quote:

I've always been a pragmatist. If two gay guys want to get married, it's none of my business. I could care less. More power to them. I'm happy when people fall in love. But if some idiot foreign terrorist wants to blow up their wedding to make a political statement, I would rather kill him before he can do it, or have my country kill him before he can do it, instead of having him do it and punishing him after the fact. If that makes me a right-wing fanatic, I will bask in that assignation.

Griff 01-16-2004 08:13 AM

Its not like the disaffected have anywhere to go. It could suppress turn out a little but Republicans are pretty regimented on that civic duty stuff.

Undertoad 01-16-2004 09:48 AM

Well all this happens as many people feel it's the end of the swing voter era, and turning out the faithful is the right strategy for the future.

Griff 01-16-2004 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
Well all this happens as many people feel it's the end of the swing voter era, and turning out the faithful is the right strategy for the future.
I guess the Dems may really be dead meat then. There seems to be no core constituency or belief system. The interests they repesented are too disparate. Hmmmmm... I wonder if a bunch of libertarians could get a foothold the donkey party by running against dopes like Sherwood, who the Dems don't even challenge anymore?

headsplice 01-16-2004 10:40 AM

The problem with mobilizing the core constituents is you don't have any flexibility (at least, no one has displayed much so far) once you gain office. For example, here in MN Pawlenty sided with the Minnesota Taxpayer's League (if that's wrong, Warch will you let me know?) who are fundamentally opposed to any tax increase. We had a multi-million dollar deficit. The Democrats proposed modest cuts and modest tax increases at the state level. The Republicans, as a result of the MTpL, wouldn't budge, so a bunch of social services (which MN is known for) got cut. The end result: increased taxes on homeowners in the areas most affected by the services cuts (i.e., NOT the Republicans districts). I'm afraid we are headed down the wrong path friends. Maybe we should start a third party that is solely committed to balancing out the lunatics on either side.

Radar 01-16-2004 11:43 AM

I liked Dennis Miller when he was still somewhat witty and funny. Sadly that was years ago. Now he seems like an idiot. Only an idiot would suggest killing people or even arresting people before they have committed a crime. Perhaps he has a crystal ball?

I for one am all for punishing those who have committed crimes (A crime has not been committed unless the person. rights, or property of another have been violated which excludes suicide, drug use or sales, prostitution, gambling, etc.), but I would never support a nightmare of punishing people who MIGHT commit crimes in the future. Anyone who has seen the movie "Minority Report" knows what I'm talking about.

What's next? Crimes against what people think about? Oops, I forgot we already have those. They're called "hate crimes legislation".

russotto 01-16-2004 03:32 PM

The Democrats have ALWAYS used the strategy of "turning out the faithful". Who are their faithful? For these purposes, mostly poor black inner-city voters, and union members (any color, usually urban). They have other core constituencies, but they aren't the subject of the "get out the vote" stuff.

Undertoad 01-16-2004 03:59 PM

Their core is everyone who isn't a white male. Only 20% of white males are Democrats.

warch 01-16-2004 05:15 PM

Bush's immigration/work plan has rattled some old white cages.
But it courts the Hispanic vote and small business.

His space announcement, although alarming those who fear the bills, teases those who know the value of scientific investment. And for Bush this is scientific investment that doesnt have messy alarms like genomic research.

Bush is courting some of those votes while Mars is the story. Lots of University money going to Dean. Bush is diversifying his campaign portfolio.

Griff 01-16-2004 06:48 PM

Seriously, small business is gettin done by both parties right now. The Dems make it difficult for anyone without a pocketful of lawyers to do business and the Reps make it difficult for anyone without a pocketful of lawyers to do business. Did I tell you guys the story about the Griffcousin who got used by his accountant yet? Its a beautiful thing when you need to hire somebody to handle your money cuz the gummint makes it impossible to hire help. Bush is no friend of the small businessman even if he didn't screw the Mexicans,.. this time.

elSicomoro 01-16-2004 08:41 PM

Rho and I have talked about this before...

It seems like people (as a whole) are incredibly complacent right now. Maybe it's like the Democrats of the 90s, who moved more towards the center with Clinton. "Well, things are going okay right now, so why not?"

Undertoad 01-19-2004 11:20 AM

On topic, generally righty Day by Day has this today.

http://cellar.org/2004/01-19-2004.gif

tw 01-19-2004 04:41 PM

Re: Disaffected Republicans?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Griff
Kevin Phillips hammers the Bush family in his new book. I run into the occasional conservative who is upset by the Bush presidency citing fiscal irresponsibility, protectionism, or war mongering. His numbers are still holding up but Is there any kind of a groundswell of discontent in the party?
We once had another unethical president. Newspaper articles like this one would appear regularly. And yet 49 states voted for that president in a landslide. Maybe in part because we were in a war just like today. No matter the war was directly traceable to that president and a government that repeatedly denied the facts - even from their own people in the field. The point is that Nixon was that corrupt. Newspaper articles like this one appeared regularly and yet still many denied the president could be a crook. History can repeat itself. Nixon tried same thing using CIA, IRS, "Enemies List", etc:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4838889-110863,00.html

xoxoxoBruce 01-19-2004 06:52 PM

Dead link, TW.:(

elSicomoro 01-19-2004 07:17 PM

Copy and paste the link into your browser, Bruce...it works for me.

tw 01-20-2004 05:27 PM

Link was good. Just not entered properly. Sorry.
us stars hail iraq war whistleblower/

Undertoad 01-21-2004 08:14 AM

Andrew Sullivan continues his disaffection in his look at yesterday's SOTU in The New Republic online. His final paragraph:
Quote:

But, more profound, the president revealed his deep suspicion of human freedom. Yes, he says he supports it. But in every instance--even charitable and religious institutions--he believes that government needs to get involved. He wants to maintain the Patriot Act intact; he wants to extend the war on drugs to steroids; he wants to prevent gay couples from having the ability to form their own families and be treated equally under the law. He suggests not a single government program to be cut. On social issues, he shifted to the hard right: abstinence programs rather than contraception; an assault on gay couples and families; and millions of dollars in order to subject children to mandatory drug testing in schools. This is not Reaganism. It isn't Gingrichism. It's Big Government Moral Conservatism: fiscally liberal and socially conservative. It will please the hard right and the base. And it will alienate libertarians and moderates. It struck me as a speech that comes out of a political cocoon, from a president who doesn't grasp that he is in fact politically vulnerable, and who intends to run not on what he plans for the future but on what he has done in the past. That's a high-risk strategy. We won't know how high a risk until the Democrats produce a nominee.

Griff 01-22-2004 03:39 PM

They're cranking up the government pre-marriage counselling hoo hah even as we speak. His belief in the power of government is breath taking.

dar512 01-22-2004 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Griff
They're cranking up the government pre-marriage counselling hoo hah even as we speak. His belief in the power of government is breath taking.
Geez, I hope the dems come up with a decent candidate.

Happy Monkey 01-22-2004 04:42 PM

Any of them is more decent than Bush. Let's hope the country comes up with a decent electorate.

Undertoad 01-31-2004 09:59 AM

Griff's original question was exactly on time, like he's suddenly clairvoyant. Over the last two weeks, Bush's status seems to have eroded mightily. Kay's WMD soundbites, interest in the D race, a weak SOTU speech, R carping about the spending, a projection that Medicare will be more expensive than they thought. (DUH !!)

By yesterday his approval ratings lost around 10 points in one poll.

Next week they release the budget and this will not stop the bleeding.

elSicomoro 01-31-2004 10:22 AM

Don't forget the economic numbers from earlier this week...they weren't as good as some had hoped.

I'm glad that the Dems are finally making a comeback, but where the FUCK have they been the last 2 years?

And from what I've been seeing and hearing, Clinton is going to play a huge role this time around, unlike 2000.

You can have $130 million in your war chest all you want, but can you beat Bill Clinton?

wolf 01-31-2004 10:42 AM

I'd like to ...

elSicomoro 01-31-2004 10:48 AM

You would be in the minority...the ladies love Clinton...in a non-sexual way as well.

wolf 01-31-2004 10:52 AM

Bill put the final nail in the donkey-shaped coffin of my disillisionment with the democratic party ... I am owed.

Besides, I never found him attractive.

elSicomoro 01-31-2004 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wolf
Bill put the final nail in the donkey-shaped coffin of my disillisionment with the democratic party
How so?

wolf 01-31-2004 11:02 AM

Violation of trust, my boy, myself and the whole of the American people.

That wasn't the only thing, of course. Actually had a lot more to do with years of noticing increases in taxation without increases in service, nonsense like the AWB, support and increase of social welfare programs to the point where the country is about ready to snap, and finally figuring out why so many communist/socialist countries have the word "democratic" in their name and so did the party ...

elSicomoro 01-31-2004 11:07 AM

And yet, you're still registered as a Democrat...

wolf 01-31-2004 11:22 AM

I can fuck with them better that way ...

xoxoxoBruce 01-31-2004 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wolf
snip-- Actually had a lot more to do with years of noticing increases in taxation without increases in service, nonsense like the AWB, support and increase of social welfare programs to the point where the country is about ready to snap, and finally figuring out why so many communist/socialist countries have the word "democratic" in their name and so did the party ...
Surplus???:confused:

elSicomoro 01-31-2004 12:29 PM

Well, as long as she doesn't try to claim she's a Republican...

Griff 01-31-2004 04:10 PM

http://www.carson-johnny.com/images/carn1.jpg

elSicomoro 01-31-2004 04:25 PM

Carnac the Magnificent is running for president too?

SteveDallas 01-31-2004 04:52 PM

He might get my vote.

warch 02-01-2004 02:11 AM

I like the way he can really blow into an envelope. (the female electorate reveals many diverse attractions)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.