Election Results/Discussion

[james1441]

The important lesson to bring out of this election is that it wasn’t a win for the anti-war factions

on the contrary thats exactly what this election was. while most democrats are no better on war than the republicans, the fact that so many republican voters voted out their party meant that a message was being sent strong and clear to both parties: “republicans, we are sick of this war and now you are out. democrats, we are giving you one and only one chance to see if you can prove yourselves by pulling out of this bloody mess, less you soon suffer the fate of the republicans who just lost to you…”

 

[Jeffrey]

The UN is pretty much worthless and beyond corrupted IMO.

Yes, the terrorists definitely know what they are doing or we wouldn’t be at war right now.
I’ll give you what I believe to be, the best form of “diplomatic” action to be taken to better protect the United States from further home-front attacks and to keep the world from firing missiles at each other.
1.) close the borders, especially since we are at war, and don’t re-open them until terrorism is under control
2.) get the U.N. involved!!! Why do we have the U.N. if it’s the U.S. running the world how THEY see fit?
That’s my opinion, anyways.

 

[Jeffrey]

The UN and Rwanda.

Still feel that the UN is worthless… unless of course you bribe them.

Tell us about the UN and Darfur.

And the UN and the Oil for Food program.

 

[james1441]

Still feel that the UN is worthless

try telling that to bush and bolton

 

[Al_Masetti]

The UN and Rwanda.

Still feel that the UN is worthless… unless of course you bribe them.

The problem with bribery is that sometimes the bribee doesn’t STAY bribed.

 

[Al_Masetti]

try telling that to bush and bolton

Bush and Bolton merely want to shine a very bright spotlight on the UN so that the rest of the planet is aware of the … ummm… [trying to be charitable here] … [need a charitable word]… ummmmm…

… so that the rest of the planet is aware of the United Nations’ SHORTCOMINGS.

Yes. Shortcomings. That’s pretty charitable, I think.

“limitations” is another extremely charitable and generous word that comes to mind.

“oil for food” makes the UN look … “corrupt”.

 

[a_priori]

The problem with bribery is that sometimes the bribee doesn’t STAY bribed.

Now there is a piece of relevant wisdom.

 

[chicago]

From what I understand, Rahm Emanuel is poised to be #4 man in the House, if he doesn’t challenge Hoyer for the #3 spot as majority whip…plus he is on the Ways and Means committee.

Ah, what’s a 5th District Congressman for?

 

[MikeWM]

“oil for food” makes the UN look … “corrupt”.

As opposed to Abramoff and the US government? Of course the UN has problems, but they are hardly unique, and the solution to them is hardly to eliminate the whole thing, along with all the good things it does.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Mike,

…No, I know, but it’s a pretty self-evident fact that there was somewhat of a ‘marriage’ between social conservatives (the ‘Christian Right’, mostly) and economic conservatives, since about the Reagan era, and most pointedly since 1994. I wonder if this is the beginning of the end of this strained and problematic marriage.

Mike

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t think so. You are assuming that social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are two distinct groups with contrary views. This is not the case. I believe the majority of Republicans are fiscally and socially conservative. There are some who are one or the other, but I doubt they form the majority.

…No, I know, but it’s a pretty self-evident fact that there was somewhat of a ‘marriage’ between social conservatives (the ‘Christian Right’, mostly) and economic conservatives, since about the Reagan era, and most pointedly since 1994. I wonder if this is the beginning of the end of this strained and problematic marriage.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

I don’t think so. You are assuming that social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are two distinct groups with contrary views. This is not the case.

Oh, I must disagree. You only have to look at the debate over illegal immigration to see the fault lines very clearly.

Mike

 

[rlg94086]

Oh, I must disagree. You only have to look at the debate over illegal immigration to see the fault lines very clearly.

Mike

You have a complete misunderstanding of the “fault lines.” There is not a split between social and fiscal conservatives. The vast majority of conservatives agree on strenghtening the borders and enforcing the law. We also agree that there should not be a blanket amnesty program.

Where we differ is on what to do with those already here. Some believe there should be a guest worker program - those who don’t want one refer to it as amnesty. Others believe we should round everyone up and deport them. Fiscal and social conservatives are in both of those camps.

 

[MikeWM]

You have a complete misunderstanding of the “fault lines.” There is not a split between social and fiscal conservatives. The vast majority of conservatives agree on strenghtening the borders and enforcing the law. We also agree that there should not be a blanket amnesty program.

Where we differ is on what to do with those already here. Some believe there should be a guest worker program - those who don’t want one refer to it as amnesty. Others believe we should round everyone up and deport them. Fiscal and social conservatives are in both of those camps.

Perhaps. It seems to me that the fiscal conservatives are quite happy with letting things go on as they are, because that way they have a continuing supply of cheap labour; and the social conservatives are opposed to the status quo because they have a strong attachment to the rule of law and because they fear social change caused by too many newcomers in a short period of time. That was the impression I got. Though, as it is only an impression, if you say I’m wrong, I guess I’ll have to believe you.

Mike

 

[chicago]

I don’t think so. You are assuming that social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are two distinct groups with contrary views. This is not the case. I believe the majority of Republicans are fiscally and socially conservative. There are some who are one or the other, but I doubt they form the majority.

Some would argue that the Republican Party is merely a convenient conglomoration of special interest groups who coalese for power in the hope of getting their own individual things done, knowing that they can not win or hold signifigant political sway on their own.

 

[chicago]

That was the impression I got.
Mike

I’m impressed by your impression.

 

[rlg94086]

Some would argue that is the definition of either political party.
That’s why I think the idea of a Catholic third party is absurd. Even Catholics don’t agree on everything, so it would need to be a conglomoration of Catholics. No different than either of the two major parties.

Some would argue that the Republican Party is merely a convenient conglomoration of special interest groups who coalese for power in the hope of getting their own individual things done, knowing that they can not win or hold signifigant political sway on their own.

 

[a_cermak]

I see fiscal conservatives as being concerned with whether the federal budget is balanced and trying to make the budget small and lean. They can be found in both parties.

The power Capitalists are the ones that want cheap labor, out-sourcing and off-shoring of manufacturing. They are the ones whose alliance with the social conservatives is showing small cracks.

I like to say that in the UK, coalitions form after the election. In the States, coalitions form before the election. Because we only have 2 parties, coalitions must be formed within parties. So environmentalists, African-Americans, Latinos, non-Christians and gays and lesbians tend to be Democrats (though not all) and social conservatives, gun fanciers, and power Capitalists tend to be GOP.

Of course, just like in the UK, these coalitions are not permanent, nor do they speak for every member of the groups. For instance, until recently, libertarians were almost always associated with the GOP. However, with the ascendance of the social conservatives, a lot of those libertarians have moved over to the Dems. Whether the Dems can keep them depends on the Dems. And the Log Cabin Republicans shows that some gays and lesbians are openly in the GOP.

 

[mary_bobo]

Oh, I must disagree. You only have to look at the debate over illegal immigration to see the fault lines very clearly.

Mike

Mike, the debate is essentially over what to do about the illegals who are already here. Conservatives think that breaking the law is not the acceptable way to enter the US. But I think it is unrealistic to expect that all those who are already here should be deported, much as they deserve to be so. I do not believe that conservatives are opposed to immigration, but are opposed to it being done illegally. We have tried granting amnesty, under Reagan, and obviously it did nothing to improve the situation. I believe you will find that the majority of Americans want the border closed until such time as reasonable regulations can be put in place. Immigrants are welcome, with open arms, but not illegally. Personally, I think our willingness to accept immigrants has been abused.

 

[estesbob]

Some would argue that the Republican Party is merely a convenient conglomoration of special interest groups who coalese for power in the hope of getting their own individual things done, knowing that they can not win or hold signifigant political sway on their own.

That is perhaps the best description of the modern Democratic Party I have ever read.