It is interesting to me as I go between CNNMSNBCFOX that they are all saying the same thing...
That so far, it is "conservative" Democrats that are winning...
I don't see much wrong with a conservative democrat if they actually can pull the Democratic party from the far far far far left to maybe just the far left...
This could actually be a problem for the Republicans...because Dem's have been losing for so long because they were so damn liberal...I know people like ron, jay and jim like that party...but the American people obviously do not...
This could be very interesting to see how many "conservative" democrats pick up seats as opposed to the same old liberals...
So far at 745 CST...conservative liberals have picked up two seats
liberal dems....0
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Observation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
I think voting in more centrist Democtrats is GREAT! Could be we could actually have less partisanship, some compromise, and actually get some things done that will benefit the people of America.
Now it will be interesting to see if Bush understands the true meaning of bi-partisanship or if he will still think it means "part with me and I say bye."
It seems to me that George held out the hand of bi-partisanship with the questionable No Child Left Behind Act. Since then, it's been Dem obstruction all the way.
But more to the point, I never understood the term "centrist" or "moderate". You either believe in something or you don't. If it means that on some issues you swing one way, and others you swing the other way, that just means that you'll be agreeable part of the time, and a pain in the ass the rest. So these conservative Democrats referred to by Game, how are they conservative? Are they all conservative in the same way, on the same issues? If they each are conservative on different issues, what good are they to the conservative cause? Would there be enough of them on a given issue to be of any help? Also, are they considered conservative due to past performance, or just from paying lip service to some conservative issues? When it gets down to it, if the Dems regain control of the House, will those "conservative" Dems really make a difference in terms of conservative issues, or will it just be more things going hard to port due to the Dem majority? Just questions raised by the mention of "centrists" and "moderates". I guess for me the bottom line would be, I'll vote for a moderate Repub over a moderate Dem any time just for the control of having a Repub majority.
As to the notion of compromise or bi-partisanship due to moderate politicians, I find this notion to be a wet dream. There still is the need for persuasion, for demonstrating the worth and truth of one's position on an issue. If I thought a politician for whom I voted went with the crowd over what is right for the sake of compromise and bi-partisanship, that would put him on my shit list. I want my guys/gals to spread the word and get the message out in a manner that leaves no choice but to agree and comply. I want my guys to hold feet to fires on issues of import and force the opposition, through logic and evidence, to change their position, not out of bi-partisanship, but because they are now convinced it's the right way to go. At the same time, I want my guys to be open to the same from the opposition should the opposition actually have a logical basis for their positions. Fuck compromise. Compromise means you don't care. Compromise is for determining the degree to which you move in a given direction, but that comes after everyone agrees the direction is best. An example would be, how much to spend on a funding something once it was agreed that that something should receive funding. Or, how to shore up the borders rather than whether or not we should be doing that first. I fear that compromise is usually meant to get most of what one side wants even though the other side believes it shouldn't be had. That's not compromise for the other side, it's giving in.
Random rambling thoughts to deflect watching the boring analysis of the numbers. Boy I hate this part of election time!
"I think voting in more centrist Democtrats is GREAT!"
Uh, like Lieberman?
marshall--
I was talking to a Democrat today about this very thing. They love the talk about compromise, representing all of the people, governing from the middle, not talking absolutist positions, being pragmatic and so forth.
In reality being a centrist means nothing specific. Either one wants to roll back the tax cuts or one does not. One wants troops out of Iraq in six months or one does not. One supports parental notification for abortion, or one does not. A centrist in the sense of having solid positions that don't align with party platforms is understandable, but there is no ideology called centrism. There is no book titled "Great Moderates in American History."
Limbaugh was spot on today on the radio on this topic. Some people are uncomfortable with those who are confident in what they believe, and tend to gravitate to weakness and uncertainty, whether it be wrongly packaged as nuance or complexity. The David Lettermans and Cate Blanchetts of the world think no one is entitled to think they have knowledge or are moral. This is the explanation of why people like Santorum, Bush, Hannity and so forth are hated so vociferously by the left, even when Bush does what the left wants on expensive issues like education and health care. Only egghead elites have the right to pronounce their knowledge, which is that no one knows anything-- everyone else is a dumbass that needs to be silenced.
As for myself, I may not be on the same page with the GOP on all of the details, but when it comes to the broad philosophical vision, I'm on their side. American power is morally superior to international institutions. Free markets are better than command economies. The traditional family is better than free love. Socialists in contrast see the world in terms of corporations duping religious people to gain power, for the purpose of conquering other countries to exploit their resources for greed. Socialists see their goal as the liberation of mankind from imperialism, corporations, and traditional morality. So here we have at least two sets of principles, and anyone who denies this isn't playing with a full deck.
Except that Lieberman isn't a centrist. He supports Bush on the Iraq war. In everything else he has a very liberal voting record.
Marshall, thank God people like you no longer hold power in the House. Thank God! This country has a long history of compromize. Without it, little will get done. With all the power on one side, you get run-away debt, run-away executive power, and incompetence without accountablility.
You get Donald Rumsfeld, the architect of the great disaster. Whatever you think about the wisdom of the invasion of Iraq, the result has been a disaster and the person responsible for that disaster is Donald Rumsfeld.
If you think the invasion of Iraq is a disaster, your only swallowing lib talking points like a whore swallowing...whatever, and not even looking for solid military assessments that say anything but. You can lean on complete idiots like Murtha and Kerry and whomever else, but here's a better use of your time: stick your head up your ass and sing show tunes. I'm fed up with the loser mentality that is a complete insult to those sacrificing all. It is those fine people I listen to, not flakes. Try it sometime.
Also, I'd be very interested in an example of true compromise. Give me both extremes and the result they settled on. Until then, it's just talk. I'd say your more likely to find one side giving in to the other. It does no good for our country to have good ideas watered down for the sake of some lefty wackjobs.
If they are conservatives why do they call themselves Democrats? Because the Republican party has totally abandoned true conservatives. The far far far far right has held the party for too long. This is what I have been saying for years. Maybe this will be a wakeup call for both parties.There were actually a few Republicans I was somewhat sorry to see go. From the parlimentary angle we needed Dems to win though.
I was looking at the ballot initives to see the will of the people there. All the no gay marriage amendments passed. That is ok with me. Civil union is fine. No need to force religious people into it. Just equality for all. All the minimum wage increases passed. I'm very fine with that. The S. Dakota ban on any abortions was losing the last I looked. Fine with me. We should all have an independant choice in the land of the free. Overall no problem with this election and I think in the long run it will be better for both parties.
Marshall, I join jim in saying I am glad you guys lost. Comprimise is also known as statemanship. The country is vast and we don't all agree on anything. To give a little to everybody and not to much to anybody is the essence of Real America. The only people I wouldn't comprimise with is people like you who think you are going to bully your way to every thing you want or stomp and swear and call names till mommy gives you your way.
Ron and Jim, for far too long the Democrat’s modus operandi for “compromise” has been “lets, with the help of the media, bombard the people with partial information, innuendo, speculation, and half truths until we can persuade 3% to 6% of the fence sitters (or the gullible) to our side, then we can pressure yellow-striped Republicans, or have more of our people elected”.
BTW – “the essence of Real America” is the entrepreneurial spirit, that when unfettered by government, is capable of truly amazing accomplishments.
Yeah, "entrepeneurial spirit ... unfettered by government." Uh, like Enron. Right?
Ron,
You have no idea of what your saying. How do I bully anyone? Where is there compromise on murder? Is it ok to murder sometime? Do you understand the difference between murder and killing? I know, not think, know, that abortion (generally speaking) is murder for two main reasons: One is a person from fertilization (scientific fact, not opinion), and it is not done for self-defense, but for personal gain or comfort, just like every other murder. NO. Abortions at early trimesters is not compromise, it's giving in and giving in to a heinous evil. It's no different than Nazis and the Klan. The pro-baby murder side has not made their case, they've only said they have the right. Cart way the fuck before the horse. Grow up.
Got any other possible ways that I've been a bully in my positions? Any real examples of where compromise could be had in any of our discussions? Or do you just want to throw around that term as if it means anything?
Bullying implies not giving you a voice. Well, you've got the voice, but your side never makes it's cases. It just demands "because". The "because" is usually some lame crap about equal rights, when it's rarely rights issue.
And how about a few examples of when Democrats have compromised. They certainly don't compromise on abortion. They don't compromise on taxes. Where is there compromise from your guys?
Jim
Are you capable of even a little logic in your thought processes? What the hell does the Enron scandal have to do with the entrepreneurial spirit?
Post a Comment