Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 15, 2018, 05:16:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Republicans lost, but Conservatism did not  (Read 1822 times)
Mr. Intenseone
Guest
« on: November 08, 2006, 10:21:31 PM »

RUSH: Well, I just heard Nancy Pelosi. Her press conference is going on right now. We're rolling tape. I'm not going to JIP it, ladies and gentlemen, but she just said that her ascension to the speakership means "more civility" in Washington. Is that an admission that they have been over the top? Anyway, greetings, my friends, and welcome. It is broadcast excellence and Rush Limbaugh from the prestigious and distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. The telephone number is 800-282-2882. The e-mail address, Rush@eibnet.com. I know a lot of you are going to want to vent today so start lining up. Again, it's 800-282-2882. Anything you want to ask, any question you've got, any comment you want to make, feel free.

I asked Brian if he wanted to do the show today. He said no. I asked Snerdley if he wanted to do the show. I said, "Dawn, you want to do the show?" I asked all kinds of people if they wanted to do the radio show today. "Oh, no, no, no! You can handle it." By the way, the president has a press conference scheduled for one o'clock (Rush JIP  | Recap), and everybody is saying he's going to have a "significant announcement" at his one o'clock press conference, and I have no indication of what that is. A lot of people are speculating he's going to announce Rumsfeld's resignation. So we'll see, but I want to take you back, ladies and gentlemen. It's a reminder. Oftentimes on this program when discussing the problems that Democrats have had over the last 12 years, electoral problems, one of my observations has always been: until they start examining what's wrong with themselves, they're never going to fix their problem -- and as such, that's exactly what we're going to do today.

When things go wrong, you must first look inward. You must ask, "What did we do wrong? What could we have done better? What mistakes did we make?" It would be foolish at this stage to start assigning blame either to the media or to liberals or Democrats or the voters or the American people. I'm not going to fall into the trap that the liberals and Democrats fall into every time they lose an election and start blaming everybody else. Republicans lost last night but conservatism did not, and that is, to me, one of the fundamental elements of last night's results. Conservatism did not lose; Republicans lost last night. In fact, Republicanism, being a political party first rather than an ideological movement, is what lost. The Democrats beat something last night with nothing.

They advanced no agenda other than their usual anti-war position. They have no contract. They really did not get specific. Their message was one of "Vote for us. The other guys have been in power too long," or what have you. There was no dominating conservative theory, nationally -- and these were nationalized elections. There was no dominating conservative message that came from the top and filtered down throughout in this campaign. It was nowhere to be found. Oh, I take that back! There was conservatism yesterday in the election, and it was to be found on the Democratic side of the aisle. There were conservative Democrats running for office in the House of Representatives and a couple conservative Senate races won by Democrats yesterday -- Jim Webb being one. Heath Shuler, of course, is one of many. Harold Ford ran as a conservative, although he came up a little bit short. But conservatism won when it was tried yesterday. Conservatism won fairly big when it was tried, and I've heard people say, "Well, this is going to present problems for Ms. Pelosi because she's gone out there and she recruited candidates." By the way, she's being credited with this strategery, by the way, and that's why there's no question that she will be the speaker. She's been credited with putting together the strategery of recruiting moderate and conservative candidates and then getting the leadership of the House and the Democrats out of the way, no Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi to muck it up. Let these guys run in the South and the Midwest as conservatives, and let them win.

Now, people are saying, "What kind of mess is this going to cause Nancy Pelosi once they get control of the House in January?" Folks, you're missing the point about that. Nancy Pelosi contributed to all of these people's campaigns, like she gave $4,500 to Heath Shuler. You know what happens? Thomas Sowell put this very well. He said the latest example of "election fraud" is actually what the Democrats did. They nominated a bunch of moderate and conservative Democrats for the express purpose of electing a far-left Democrat leadership. If you're looking for a good side, Democrats could not win this election being liberals. They could not have won the House being liberals. Maybe in some parts of the country, but all the Democrats flexing their muscles and feeling good about this have to admit here that liberalism didn't win anything yesterday.

Republicanism lost. Conservatism was nowhere to be found other than on the Democrat side of the aisle. Now, there are a number of theories that are running out there on what caused all this to happen. The political environment was terrible; the public deeply unhappy with the fact that the Republican Congress got too comfortable in power and that the conservativism that was known to exist in the House Republicans just vanished, in many cases died. The public is unhappy with the war, but they're unhappy and because they don't see the progress or the result that they want. There wasn't any big move toward liberalism on national security issues. There wasn't any big move on liberalism when it comes to gay marriage or affirmative action. Affirmative action lost in Michigan.

A bunch of gay marriage amendments passed around the country, and if you look at Connecticut, Lieberman and Lamont: Lamont the chosen candidate of the far left wing of the Democratic Party went down in flames. Some people say, "Well, there was too much scandal, and there were too many investigations in the House of Representatives, Mark Foley, a number of other people." Corruption was supposedly a big issue with the public. Maybe so, but Democrats had their own scandal problems that didn't affect them. William Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana) has a scandal problem. He's in a runoff. Alan Hevesi in New York, he has a scandal problem. It didn't affect him. I think, ladies and gentlemen, that the facts are these. Our side, you and I, hunger for ideological leadership, and we're not getting it from the top. Conservatism, conservative ideology was nowhere to be found in this campaign from the top. The Democrats beat something with nothing. They didn't have to take a stand on anything other than their usual anti-war position. They had no clear agenda -- and believe me, they didn't dare offer one. Liberalism will still lose every time it's offered, and they nationalized these campaigns, and if they really believed liberalism was their answer then they wouldn't have nominated and have had so many conservative Democrats and moderates running for House and Senate seats. We allowed ourselves to be defined. Without elected conservative leadership from the top, Republicans in the House and Senate are free to freelance and say, "The hell with party unity." They could go and do whatever.

 So you come up with RINOs, Republican in name only, if they're not held to some sort of party discipline from the top. I know a lot of people are critical of House members -- and, believe me, I'm not trying to defend anybody here. I'm simply saying that some of those people in the House of Representatives were in a no-win situation on issues like immigration and spending and education and entitlements, because they could not logically and easily, buck their own president and have the party survive, so they bought the dust. The Democratic Party is the party of entitlement, yet the Republicans come up with this Medicare, the prescription drug entitlement, that polls said the recipients didn't want and weren't interested in!

I don't care what the details of the issue are, that is not conservatism. Conservatives do not grow the government and offer entitlements as a means of buying votes. But that's what the Republicans in the Congress had to support in order to stay in line with the party from the top. It presented numerous problems. The answer to this is going to be unfolding over the course of the next few months, but hopefully the message is going to get clear. Look, folks, it's silly to blame the media. It is silly to blame the Democrats. It is silly to go out and try to find all these excuses. We have proven we can beat them. We've proven we can beat Democrats. We have proven we can withstand whatever we get from the Drive-By Media. Conservatism does that. Conservatism -- properly applied, proudly, eagerly, with vigor and honesty -- will triumph that nine times out of ten in this current political environment and social environment in this country.

It just wasn't utilized in this campaign, and there are many reasons for it, but the primary reason is fear of criticism from those in the so-called establishment, and nobody wants to be criticized and nobody wants to go through life in fear, so a lot of people go out of their way to make our opponents think, "Well, I'm not that bad a guy. I'm not really one of those extreme kooks. I'm reasonable." So the whole ideology of conservatism gets watered down within the threat of fear and the desire to be liked and all of this, and the Democrats now get to tell themselves whatever they want to tell themselves why they won. That will be interesting for me to watch, too. Did they think they won because they're liberals? Will they be honest with themselves and tell themselves they won because they had the opportunity to run against nothing? Anything can beat nothing, and it happened yesterday.BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: El Rushbo, your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, despair, wipeouts, overwhelming defeats and even the good times here at the EIB Network. I'm going to say something, ladies and gentlemen, that's going to make some of you mad. I've said it before, but you may not want to be reminded of it today. In the past, even during times of victory in elections (certainly during times of defeat) I have admonished you, I have asked you, I have begged you, not to allow who wins elections to affect your life. (interruption) Snerdley is saying, "Nobody wants to hear this today," and I'm going to explain to you why I'm going to say it. I wrote a chapter in my book: "My Success is not Determined by Who Wins Elections."

Now, granted we all want an identity for the country, and we all want a representative of ourselves as the leader at the top. We have a hope and a desire for our children and grandchildren to have a better life than we have and that we will be secure. We have all those things, and we know that having leadership in the right places with the right people is fundamental in that regard. At the same time, nobody is going to win every game they get into. No baseball team will. No football team will. No political party will. No candidate will (other than Ted Kennedy. There are always exceptions). But the fact of the matter is, your life goes on today, and your life will go on tomorrow.

 It'll be a tough balance, but my whole point in saying this is: Don't turn over your life to government. Whether you're a conservative or a liberal, don't expect that only good things can happen to you or you can only succeed if the right things are happening with government. That is not true. There is no reason to put your arms up in despair and think your life is over or your future is bleak simply because of this. We've been here too many times. Conservatism came out of the primordial mist, if you will, many, many decades ago. (Okay, AP has called Montana. Tester is now the winner out there. So they're making that official.) I don't want to dwell on this because I know some of you don't want to hear what you think is phony optimism today, but it isn't phony because I've said this every month or so since I've been on the air on this program now into our 19th year.

I'm not saying, "Forget what happens. Get out of the game." Some of you probably want to do that, but there are too many defeats in life; there are too many losses in life that are outside your own life to let them have an effect on you, a profound effect for a long time. Sure there's disappointment, and feel it. Go ahead and experience it. It will motivate you to not want to go through it again and see what you can do. All these things have the opportunity for good in them, and they all have the opportunity for learning. (Steele is conceding in his race against Ben Cardin.) All right, a quick e-mail first. "Rush, Rick Santorum ran as a conservative. He stayed true to his conservative values, and he lost." This is from Marilyn Austin in Woodstock, Georgia, and she's taking issue with me that conservatism wins every time it's tried.Remember, these were nationalized elections, and I think in the case of Santorum two things. I read the other day that the second oldest population in the country is in Pennsylvania. If you measure it by state, the elderly population, the state with the second largest elderly population is Pennsylvania. So you factor some of this into that and you come out maybe with a conclusion like this: What did Santorum stand for? Santorum stood for things that were visionary, 20 years down the road, making sure that the war in Iraq and the war on terror was prosecuted properly and that we didn't cave and give up. He was interested in Social Security reform. Santorum did stay true to his conservative principles, which are visionary, not just worried about today and tomorrow, but what will what we do today and tomorrow mean ten, 15 years down the road.

Now, if you have an elderly population which doesn't care about ten to 15 years down the road -- if you have an elderly population that spends all day watching MSDNC, CNN, and whatever other cable networks out there, ABC, CBS, NBC at night -- they're going to have a very doomy and gloomy view of tomorrow without being concerned about 15 or 20 years down the road, and if these people happen to think (and I, of course, am just speculating here) but if these people in Pennsylvania happen to think that the war in Iraq is wrong primarily because it's money that could be coming to them in increased benefits, then who are they going to blame? They're going to blame that young whippersnapper Santorum who doesn't care about them.

 You get into a liberal northeastern state with two Rust Belt-type cities, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, populated with elderly people and liberal Democrats and union types who are not looking down the road ten or 20 years, then you throw up an opponent who has huge name ID, Bob Casey, son of a popular former governor who doesn't take a position on anything, and then who thereby doesn't offend anybody. This is why I said yesterday, the whole thing, I'm disappointed with what happened to Santorum, but there are certain mitigating circumstances in every situation. When I say, "Conservatism works every time it's tried," of course, that's not as true as saying, "Abstinence works every time it's tried," but I'll tell you something: the Republican Party had better learn something real fast. It does far better when it is proudly conservative than when it is what it was yesterday.

The Republican Party is going to do far better when it is openly proud and willing to define in every speech it makes what conservatism is, leading people to that movement, making them feel like there's a future, making them feel proud of themselves, making them happy to be Americans, rather than this hodgepodge: RINO Republican over there, moderate Republican here, invisible Republican over there, frightened conservative Republican over here. What this adds up to is a bunch of Republicans afraid to be who they are for fear of being criticized by the dreaded media and the social culture in Washington. So they go out of their way trying to get approval by their enemies and their opponents to show that they're not mean people, to show that they're not extremists or whatever, and you get what you got yesterday. It's just that simple. Conservatism may not win every time it's tried, but the Republican Party has no prayer when it runs as a bunch of squishy, moderate, simple Republicans.

When the Republican Party presents itself as the image the left has always presented of it -- blue-blood, country club, corporate type rich people -- it is going to lose every time it advances itself that way and puts itself forward that way, and that is what happened. It presented itself as nothing. It allowed itself to be defined by Mark Foley and a number of other scandals, rather than all of the good that I just pointed out. We all know that there are very positive things happening out there, but it was not trumpeted by the people who should have been shouting it from the rooftops because they were proud of it. They should have been shouting it from the rooftops, "Look what we've done! Look how America can improve! Look how your future is brighter!" Even the Iraq war could be better explained, instead of allowing the template to be set by its critics and then respond in a defensive way to that. You have a defensive, gee-I'm-afraid-of-my-shadow, Republican Party, Rockefeller-type Republican Party, you're going to get this result more often than not. You go pedal-to-the-metal conservative and the evidence is clear: it beats liberalism, particularly a liberalism afraid to be honest about what it is.

END TRANSCRIPT
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2006, 10:45:35 PM »

politics = distraction theater so people can have something to discuss while we export capitalism to nations while managing their resources for them.
Report to moderator   Logged

240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2006, 10:56:42 PM »

BUSH's plan for our nation was just not SUSTAINABLE.

Simply put, if Bush and his White house had their way, what would have happened?

1) We would have invaded Iran, putting us in a 3rd war.

2)  Dubai would be guarding many of our ports.

3)  Tax cuts would have continued to cost our kids their future standards of living.

4)  Defense spending would keep growing.

5)  We'd be managing the bulk of the middle east's oil for them.


It's starting to appear to me that Bush's Monopoly was a "get everything you can til you get thrown out" type of deal.  Think about it.  For each of the points above,

1) A 3rd war would have motivated many more jihadists, would have stretched our troops thinner, and would have gotten us into three current vietnam style quagmires.

2) Our borders would be more vulnerable

3) tax cuts would have grown and our retirement woudl have shrunk.

4) maybe another 2.3 Trillion would have gone missing at the Pentagon?

5) The US would be hated by the world for effectively trying to take it over.
Report to moderator   Logged

Hugo Chavez
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31867


« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2006, 05:13:08 AM »

The way I see it, conservatives have lost bigtime under Bush and Neocon control... They win bigtime now,... so thank the dems... many of them are the real conservives...  The psycho neocons have been shown for what they are and are on the run.  True conservatives are cheering Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Purge_WTF
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6425

Constitution Party forever.


« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2006, 07:46:56 AM »

The way I see it, conservatives have lost bigtime under Bush and Neocon control... They win bigtime now,... so thank the dems... many of them are the real conservives...  The psycho neocons have been shown for what they are and are on the run.  True conservatives are cheering Wink

  That's my stance--true Conservatism is the perfect remedy for the disease that is Bush-esque Neoconservatism.
Report to moderator   Logged

P
Hugo Chavez
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31867


« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2006, 08:06:44 AM »

  That's my stance--true Conservatism is the perfect remedy for the disease that is Bush-esque Neoconservatism.
I can't believe people are still falling for their bullshit... The top neocons are renouncing in a sad attempt to not lose all their influence, they're on the run but you've still got Intenseone spewing crap that funneled through the neocon ecochamber spewed out to the people by the likes of Rush and Company.  Even Rush, several times, seemed to be boggled with the neocon direction, but he would just attempt to justify it and move on...  Why was rush willing to change and adapt to the neocon direction?  Because neocons were sitting on much of the conservative movement holding them hostage with things like gay marriage, flag burning and the lies that not supporting them, meant not supporting the troops as well as other similar lies... And Rush considers himself to be an entertainer first... When he himself seemed boggled by the neocon direction, he could have made choices there to say no I'm not supporting this but being an entertainer, he knows that would have put himself at odds with much of his audience who were also facing the same neocon fence.  Rush went for the money and followed... I will say that Rush is probably very happy right now because his audience goes up in times of Dem power...  He's mostly likely dancing circles because he knows he'll be able to spew his hate on air and grab more listeners... He's a poison on America because of these traits...  Even if he doesn't believe, he will speak these things for the sake of entertainment/audience and money... it's a business for him which makes it different than guys like Jay Marvin who have taken a smaller audience to be able to say what's on his mind.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hedgehog
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19472


It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2006, 08:28:41 AM »

"Republicans lost, but Conservatism did not"

Huh

So Democrats are the new Conservatives according to Limbaugh?  Shocked

YIP
Zack
Report to moderator   Logged

As empty as paradise
buffbodz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5533


It's only a board


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2006, 08:49:27 AM »

The world won.  Back to checks and balances, as it should be.
Report to moderator   Logged

6 meals lift heavy and 1/2 hr cardio
Hugo Chavez
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31867


« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2006, 09:39:30 AM »

"Republicans lost, but Conservatism did not"

Huh

So Democrats are the new Conservatives according to Limbaugh?  Shocked

YIP
Zack
Occording to Limbaugh my ass... There's no reason in reality that Rush was not aware of this yesterday and the day before and so on and so on.... This has been so long in the making it's pathetic... The transition started in earnest in the early 90's...  The parties have largly flipped now...  The one socialist in the democratic party doesn't even talk like a socialist, he sounds more like yesterday's liberal right out of Churchill's definition of liberal. I heard him talk and was like, that's liberalism calling itself socialist... I haven't heard him past that one speech so maybe he matches more under a more indepth look...   Bill Maher yesterday on Larry King said there is no liberal party and hasn't been one for some time... Rush has to find his place now and that means coming to terms with some things he's ignored for anger and profit for some time... 
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2006, 09:46:12 AM »

There are neoconservatives, and there are conservatives.

Neocons cannot, or will not, accept that the Repub party is factioned.  They rationalize that anyone who isn't on board the fearmongering war machine isn't a Republican.  This is incorrect.  We're very much here.  We didn't vote for the republicans who were parroting the neocon line.  Period.  That's why they lost Tuesday.

OReilly and Rush appeal to that neocon group now.  Will they look at the data and move more to the *regular* Republicans now?  Ratings say yes.  Time will tell.

Neocons, wake the fuck up.  Bush wants 3 simultaneous wars.  Bush wants to wipe his ass with the Constitution.  The rest of us Repubs have opened up a history book and seen what happens with a war culture and restricted civil rights.  We don't want our country suffering the longterm effects of short term greed.  neocons, settle down, stop being so scared of a threat which is selectively told to us to push political goals.  Settle down, accept the 60% of Repubs who are not neocons, and get your party back.
Report to moderator   Logged

Hugo Chavez
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31867


« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2006, 10:12:14 AM »

I recommend reading Pat Buchanan's articles during the height of the neocons... good stuff... Nobody was more aware of being held hostage than the conservatives but they felt they could bring around the neocons to their way of thinking through public criticism... Wrong.... I like a lot of what pat says and have many times passed around his work, but man that MF'er is stubborn Angry In the end, all he did was prolong everyone's pain by thinking he could bring the neocons to the conservative way of thinking... BAAAA.. Roll Eyes  In reality, hearings should be held to uncover what the neocon cabals true purpose was.  Pretty much a theft of American Power for a foreign interest is what they would find...
Report to moderator   Logged
Camel Jockey
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16722


Mel Gibson and Bob Sly World Domination


« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2006, 04:20:40 PM »

Neocons lost.

Intestone, you are your boy Rush are far from conservative, so stop calling yourselves conservatives and make use of the term neocon.  Angry
Report to moderator   Logged
Purge_WTF
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6425

Constitution Party forever.


« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2006, 04:33:16 PM »

Neocons lost.

Intestone, you are your boy Rush are far from conservative, so stop calling yourselves conservatives and make use of the term neocon.  Angry

  Exactly.
Report to moderator   Logged

P
Hugo Chavez
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31867


« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2006, 04:45:51 PM »

Int is a neocon, I didn't know it was up for debate Huh
Report to moderator   Logged
Hedgehog
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19472


It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2006, 04:41:14 AM »

Occording to Limbaugh my ass... There's no reason in reality that Rush was not aware of this yesterday and the day before and so on and so on.... This has been so long in the making it's pathetic... The transition started in earnest in the early 90's...  The parties have largly flipped now...  The one socialist in the democratic party doesn't even talk like a socialist, he sounds more like yesterday's liberal right out of Churchill's definition of liberal. I heard him talk and was like, that's liberalism calling itself socialist... I haven't heard him past that one speech so maybe he matches more under a more indepth look...   Bill Maher yesterday on Larry King said there is no liberal party and hasn't been one for some time... Rush has to find his place now and that means coming to terms with some things he's ignored for anger and profit for some time... 

A statement like that from Bill Maher seems uneducated.

Both parties are thoroughly liberal, Republicans more on some issues, like free trade, Democrats more on other issues.

I definitely would love to hear Limbaugh, or anyone else who blast "libs", explain how being pro free trade (Bush is) is not Liberal.

Republicans are often Moral-Conservative. But they're still Liberals.

My point is, Liberalism is the core ideology that the Western Democracy is built on.

Francis Fukujama discusses all this in "End of History". He claims that Liberalism won, and is the base ideology for everyone, at the same time Liberalism has become watered out, and have plenty of different versions.

BTW, Fukujama is a known Bush supporter.

YIP
Zack
Report to moderator   Logged

As empty as paradise
Hugo Chavez
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31867


« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2006, 05:09:16 AM »

A statement like that from Bill Maher seems uneducated.

Both parties are thoroughly liberal, Republicans more on some issues, like free trade, Democrats more on other issues.

I definitely would love to hear Limbaugh, or anyone else who blast "libs", explain how being pro free trade (Bush is) is not Liberal.

Republicans are often Moral-Conservative. But they're still Liberals.

My point is, Liberalism is the core ideology that the Western Democracy is built on.

Francis Fukujama discusses all this in "End of History". He claims that Liberalism won, and is the base ideology for everyone, at the same time Liberalism has become watered out, and have plenty of different versions.

BTW, Fukujama is a known Bush supporter.

YIP
Zack

Pro free trade is neo-liberalism... the kind of thing that leaders like Chavez and a great part of the left in America is fighting against... not the kind of lib they're talking about...  Bill Maher is not the only person saying it either.  If they're spending time asking this question on the networks and I've heard it a few times now in the last few days, it's hardly an uneducated statement.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hedgehog
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19472


It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2006, 06:28:28 AM »

Pro free trade is neo-liberalism... the kind of thing that leaders like Chavez and a great part of the left in America is fighting against... not the kind of lib they're talking about...  Bill Maher is not the only person saying it either.  If they're spending time asking this question on the networks and I've heard it a few times now in the last few days, it's hardly an uneducated statement.

FWIW, Democrats are conservatives in some aspects IMO. Trade being one of them, traditionally taking a protectionist stance on the issue.

Neo-liberalism? Free trade is a concept that has always been part of Liberalism. It's fundamental, and was one of the main things discussed by Adam Smith.

As far as neo-liberalism, that would be the label I would put on Bush, and I think most political science professors would agree. He's moral-conservative, but he's still a big liberal in many ways.

In some aspects, the Democrats have never been liberals. Their negativity towards free trade being one example.

My point is, we're all liberals in one way or another, as you yourself pointed out when mentioning that "Socialist".

People who label themselves as Socialists, are usually social-liberals these days. Just as Conservatives are usually Liberals with Moral-Conservative values added.

Sorry for the rant.

YIP
Zack
Report to moderator   Logged

As empty as paradise
Colossus_500
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3993


Psalm 139


« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2006, 06:55:17 AM »

Intense, here's a good article for you to read.  It points out that Democrats need to be wary of the lessons learned by the GOP in this past election, and that, indeed, values voters will be watching!!!!  In my state, VA, George Allen lost by 7,000 votes, but the marriage amendment scored some 150,000+ votes more than the senatore did.  This article speaks volumes about the trend. 

ELECTION 2006
'They just don't get it'
is why Republicans lost
Dobson, Bauer, Minnery, Perkins
say GOP ignored voters' values


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 9, 2006
8:45 p.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 WorldNetDaily.com


Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family

The so-called "values voters" who handed both houses of Congress and the White House to Republicans in 2000 and 2004 were at this year's election, they just didn't see anybody promising to represent them, according to several leaders influential to that group of Americans.

"The unfortunate thing is that Republican leaders still don't appear to get it. Sen. Arlen Spector, R-Pa., said on Wednesday that the election results represented a 'seismic earthquake' and that his party must become 'a lot more progressive and a lot less ideological,'" said James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and director of its dozens of publications and broadcast service that reaches about five million Americans daily.

"Dick Armey emerged from four years in the wilderness to blame conservative Christians for Tuesday's defeat. They were, he said, 'too involved' with the party. He can't be serious! Someone should tell him that without the support of that specific constituency, John Kerry would be president and the Republicans would have fallen into a black hole in '04," he said.

"In fact, that is where they are headed if they continue to abandon their pro-moral, pro-family and pro-life base. The big tent will turn into a three-ring circus," Dobson said.

"Values Voters are not going to carry the water for the Republican Party if it ignores their deeply held convictions and beliefs," he said.

Dobson was joined on his radio program by Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, Tom Minnery and Carrie Gordon Earll.

Bauer directs Our American Values, Perkins heads the Family Research Council, Minnery is the Focus on the Family vice president, and Earll is in the public policy division at Focus.

Minnery pointed out that in 2004, 11 out of 11 state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman were passed by voters on one night. This year the record was just about as good, at seven out of eight, and the one that lost failed by only a few percentage points in Arizona, where the pro-marriage campaign had suffered several serious difficulties, including the death in an auto accident of a key leader.

"In 2004 voters handed them a 10-seat majority in the Senate and a 29-seat advantage in the House. What did they do with this advantage? Very little that values voters are concerned about," Minnery said.

"We thought there finally was a Congress that was going to nail down the definition of marriage. It was like pulling teeth (to get them to talk about it)," he said.

Bauer noted that in Virginia, where a heavily-favored George Allen was expected to win a Senate seat easily but relinquished the battle to Democratic challenger James Webb, the marriage amendment ran hundreds of thousands of votes better than Allen.

But instead of emphasizing his support for marriage being limited to between one man and one woman, Allen spent money attacking his opponent on the concept of women in combat.

Dobson noted that the U.S. economy is as high, and unemployment as low as ever, so it couldn't have been reaction to economics.

"There are people who have these values, values voters haven't vanished," said Minnery. "What they're looking for is someone who will articulate their values, and then really importantly, to get them to come back, to act on those promises they made during the campaign."

Perkins said exit polling showed two-thirds of the voters expressed concern over Iraq, but three-fourths of all voters said scandals were a major concern.

"That's the values gap, the values voters. The values voters of 2004 have become the integrity voters of 2006. Values are not something you can just talk about at election time. They should guide your conduct. The Republicans failed to do that and they lost," he said.

Bauer noted that 60 percent of the voters responded that America is headed in the wrong direction. "The evidence is overwhelming what most Americans are thinking about is not the economy. Some may be thinking about the war. A good deal are thinking about the breakdown in values, the attack on marriage," he said.

Meanwhile, several Democrats had won great support campaigning on values: One cited was Barack Obama, who said in a recent speech about gangs that the problem is moral, that there is a "hole in that young man's heart, a hole that government cannot fill," said Minnery.

"Republican leaders in Congress during this term apparently never understood, or they forgot, why Ronald Reagan was so loved and why he is considered one of our greatest presidents. If they hope to return to power in '08, they must rediscover the conservative principles that resonated with the majority of Americans in the 1980s and still resonate with them today. Failure to do so will be catastrophic," Dobson said.

Earll noted confirmation of the presence of values voters came in South Dakota and Missouri, even though those abortion and cloning issues were decided wrong, from a pro-life perspective.

Almost half of the voters in South Dakota voted for a total abortion ban, a measure that pro-life organizations in the United States have only been able to dream about since the 1973 "Roe" decision. In Missouri, even though outspent 10-1, pro-life groups very nearly defeated the constitutional amendment that will now create the "right" to clone human embryos, she said.

The voters weren't looking at party, Dobson said, they were looking for an endorsement of their values. In many cases, they were able to vote on issues, but failed to find a candidate worthy, he noted.

Earll noted the divide was stark in Colorado. Voters chose a Democratic governor and constitutionally protected marriage between one man and one woman and at the same time torpedoed a "gay partnership" proposal that that same gubernatorial candidate endorsed.

"The way it's being spun by the media, and some Republicans, is that this is a rejection of the pro-family agenda, the values voters perspective," said Dobson. "That's simply not true when you look at the individual races. What is happening is we're seeing values embraced and the parties being rejected."

Focus spokesman Gary Schneeberger told WND the election can be described easily: voters rejected what the Republicans did after they were given a mandate to run the country on faith and values.

Dobson noted he'd been interviewed by U.S. News and World Report after the 2004 elections and warned if Republicans squandered their opportunity, they would pay a price at the polls in either 2008 or 2006.

Dobson's predictions about values and the Republican Party go back even further than that, too.

In 1998 he told a reporter that the GOP was in danger of losing its ability to "claim to speak for those of us with deep moral convictions."

He said at that time the party has "ignored the moral issues year after year, term after term" and said at that time it was "time to fish or cut bait."

Eight years ago he warned the GOP Christians and conservatives "will abandon them if they continue to ignore the most important issues."

Even before he made that forecast, Dobson said that Christians should tell the GOP leadership at that time Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Trent Lott that "the ground is shifting underneath their feet; that they are aware that they have been ignored and if that lack of commitment to the things in which they believe continues then they will abandon the Republican Party."

Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31867


« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2006, 07:13:27 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberalism

neo liberalism is opposed by a large faction of the left period.  Neoliberalism is a friend of fascism


As a quick example of this even Bill Clinton is criticised by the left for his neoliberal beliefs ...  Michael Moore being a good example of that public criticism existing from the left.








.... ahahaha.... I know Intenseone will be reading all this with a swirling WTF look...  Just post a nuke pick and move on Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31867


« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2006, 07:21:08 AM »

FWIW, Democrats are conservatives in some aspects IMO. Trade being one of them, traditionally taking a protectionist stance on the issue.

Neo-liberalism? Free trade is a concept that has always been part of Liberalism. It's fundamental, and was one of the main things discussed by Adam Smith.

As far as neo-liberalism, that would be the label I would put on Bush, and I think most political science professors would agree. He's moral-conservative, but he's still a big liberal in many ways.

In some aspects, the Democrats have never been liberals. Their negativity towards free trade being one example.

My point is, we're all liberals in one way or another, as you yourself pointed out when mentioning that "Socialist".

People who label themselves as Socialists, are usually social-liberals these days. Just as Conservatives are usually Liberals with Moral-Conservative values added.

Sorry for the rant.

YIP
Zack
Like with Bill Maher's comment and the comments in the media lately about the move in the democratic party, they're talking about Liberals like the right's painted picture of the evil American libs... Bill is saying that party doesn't much exist and I think he's somewhat right.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hedgehog
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19472


It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2006, 07:48:21 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberalism

neo liberalism is opposed by a large faction of the left period.  Neoliberalism is a friend of fascism


As a quick example of this even Bill Clinton is criticised by the left for his neoliberal beliefs ...  Michael Moore being a good example of that public criticism existing from the left.








.... ahahaha.... I know Intenseone will be reading all this with a swirling WTF look...  Just post a nuke pick and move on Grin

I wasn't kidding when I wrote that I considered him a Liberal... Smiley

Not the same kind of Liberal as Nancy Pelosi, but both are Liberals.

The issue whether politics are drifting away from ideology and big shifts in paradigms, and more becoming about conducting the government and the country (within more or less given set of rules), is an interesting one. Perhaps we'll get to discuss it when 08 arrives.

YIP
Zack
Report to moderator   Logged

As empty as paradise
Hugo Chavez
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31867


« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2006, 08:08:10 AM »

remember, a lib or libtard or libby or "radical liberal" or "dangerous liberal" in America is basically someone who is a true socialist and someone who wants to raise your taxes, take way your guns, take away your feedoms and have big government controlling every aspect of your life.  These depictions of the American Liberal have come into existence at the hand of the right... The daily preaching of Rush and Company... The political ads all painted Kerry and several "liberal" dems this way in this election...  But when you get down to it, you are now more likely to hear a dem argue why government should stay out of your personal life than a republican... Good case would be Terry Schiavo.  So from that American Perspective of what the evil liberal embodies, that party is pretty much not existent like bill says.  Politically neoliberalism is a very different animal.  Check out some of Noam Chomsky's work on neoliberalism.  Here's another guy from the left attacking neoliberalism.  You are right to say both parties have neoliberals but the republicans far far more outweigh the dems in that department without a doubt...
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54172

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2006, 08:30:21 AM »

Intense, here's a good article for you to read.  It points out that Democrats need to be wary of the lessons learned by the GOP in this past election, and that, indeed, values voters will be watching!!!!  In my state, VA, George Allen lost by 7,000 votes, but the marriage amendment scored some 150,000+ votes more than the senatore did.  This article speaks volumes about the trend. 

ELECTION 2006
'They just don't get it'
is why Republicans lost
Dobson, Bauer, Minnery, Perkins
say GOP ignored voters' values


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 9, 2006
8:45 p.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 WorldNetDaily.com


Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family

The so-called "values voters" who handed both houses of Congress and the White House to Republicans in 2000 and 2004 were at this year's election, they just didn't see anybody promising to represent them, according to several leaders influential to that group of Americans.

"The unfortunate thing is that Republican leaders still don't appear to get it. Sen. Arlen Spector, R-Pa., said on Wednesday that the election results represented a 'seismic earthquake' and that his party must become 'a lot more progressive and a lot less ideological,'" said James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and director of its dozens of publications and broadcast service that reaches about five million Americans daily.

"Dick Armey emerged from four years in the wilderness to blame conservative Christians for Tuesday's defeat. They were, he said, 'too involved' with the party. He can't be serious! Someone should tell him that without the support of that specific constituency, John Kerry would be president and the Republicans would have fallen into a black hole in '04," he said.

"In fact, that is where they are headed if they continue to abandon their pro-moral, pro-family and pro-life base. The big tent will turn into a three-ring circus," Dobson said.

"Values Voters are not going to carry the water for the Republican Party if it ignores their deeply held convictions and beliefs," he said.

Dobson was joined on his radio program by Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, Tom Minnery and Carrie Gordon Earll.

Bauer directs Our American Values, Perkins heads the Family Research Council, Minnery is the Focus on the Family vice president, and Earll is in the public policy division at Focus.

Minnery pointed out that in 2004, 11 out of 11 state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman were passed by voters on one night. This year the record was just about as good, at seven out of eight, and the one that lost failed by only a few percentage points in Arizona, where the pro-marriage campaign had suffered several serious difficulties, including the death in an auto accident of a key leader.

"In 2004 voters handed them a 10-seat majority in the Senate and a 29-seat advantage in the House. What did they do with this advantage? Very little that values voters are concerned about," Minnery said.

"We thought there finally was a Congress that was going to nail down the definition of marriage. It was like pulling teeth (to get them to talk about it)," he said.

Bauer noted that in Virginia, where a heavily-favored George Allen was expected to win a Senate seat easily but relinquished the battle to Democratic challenger James Webb, the marriage amendment ran hundreds of thousands of votes better than Allen.

But instead of emphasizing his support for marriage being limited to between one man and one woman, Allen spent money attacking his opponent on the concept of women in combat.

Dobson noted that the U.S. economy is as high, and unemployment as low as ever, so it couldn't have been reaction to economics.

"There are people who have these values, values voters haven't vanished," said Minnery. "What they're looking for is someone who will articulate their values, and then really importantly, to get them to come back, to act on those promises they made during the campaign."

Perkins said exit polling showed two-thirds of the voters expressed concern over Iraq, but three-fourths of all voters said scandals were a major concern.

"That's the values gap, the values voters. The values voters of 2004 have become the integrity voters of 2006. Values are not something you can just talk about at election time. They should guide your conduct. The Republicans failed to do that and they lost," he said.

Bauer noted that 60 percent of the voters responded that America is headed in the wrong direction. "The evidence is overwhelming what most Americans are thinking about is not the economy. Some may be thinking about the war. A good deal are thinking about the breakdown in values, the attack on marriage," he said.

Meanwhile, several Democrats had won great support campaigning on values: One cited was Barack Obama, who said in a recent speech about gangs that the problem is moral, that there is a "hole in that young man's heart, a hole that government cannot fill," said Minnery.

"Republican leaders in Congress during this term apparently never understood, or they forgot, why Ronald Reagan was so loved and why he is considered one of our greatest presidents. If they hope to return to power in '08, they must rediscover the conservative principles that resonated with the majority of Americans in the 1980s and still resonate with them today. Failure to do so will be catastrophic," Dobson said.

Earll noted confirmation of the presence of values voters came in South Dakota and Missouri, even though those abortion and cloning issues were decided wrong, from a pro-life perspective.

Almost half of the voters in South Dakota voted for a total abortion ban, a measure that pro-life organizations in the United States have only been able to dream about since the 1973 "Roe" decision. In Missouri, even though outspent 10-1, pro-life groups very nearly defeated the constitutional amendment that will now create the "right" to clone human embryos, she said.

The voters weren't looking at party, Dobson said, they were looking for an endorsement of their values. In many cases, they were able to vote on issues, but failed to find a candidate worthy, he noted.

Earll noted the divide was stark in Colorado. Voters chose a Democratic governor and constitutionally protected marriage between one man and one woman and at the same time torpedoed a "gay partnership" proposal that that same gubernatorial candidate endorsed.

"The way it's being spun by the media, and some Republicans, is that this is a rejection of the pro-family agenda, the values voters perspective," said Dobson. "That's simply not true when you look at the individual races. What is happening is we're seeing values embraced and the parties being rejected."

Focus spokesman Gary Schneeberger told WND the election can be described easily: voters rejected what the Republicans did after they were given a mandate to run the country on faith and values.

Dobson noted he'd been interviewed by U.S. News and World Report after the 2004 elections and warned if Republicans squandered their opportunity, they would pay a price at the polls in either 2008 or 2006.

Dobson's predictions about values and the Republican Party go back even further than that, too.

In 1998 he told a reporter that the GOP was in danger of losing its ability to "claim to speak for those of us with deep moral convictions."

He said at that time the party has "ignored the moral issues year after year, term after term" and said at that time it was "time to fish or cut bait."

Eight years ago he warned the GOP Christians and conservatives "will abandon them if they continue to ignore the most important issues."

Even before he made that forecast, Dobson said that Christians should tell the GOP leadership at that time Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Trent Lott that "the ground is shifting underneath their feet; that they are aware that they have been ignored and if that lack of commitment to the things in which they believe continues then they will abandon the Republican Party."



Great article.
Report to moderator   Logged
Cavalier22
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3309

Citizens! The Fatherland is in Danger


« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2006, 08:35:30 AM »

The statement of this thread is true.

If you go Ballot initiative by Ballot initiative, conservativsim won by a landslide. THe reasons republicans, the more conservative party, lost is because everyone is sick of that cowboy in the white house.  When people realize what kind of views Nancy Pelosi and the like hold, people will not be happy.
Report to moderator   Logged

Valhalla awaits.
Cavalier22
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3309

Citizens! The Fatherland is in Danger


« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2006, 10:25:51 AM »

bump
Report to moderator   Logged

Valhalla awaits.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!