The Great Republican Victory was Today (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

As I write this, the GOP has lost the House, and is on track to also possibly lose the Senate, pending a recount in Virginia, and the results in Missouri (outcome either way is in doubt).

Why is this a victory for the Republican party? Because this marks the beginning of the end for the Bushneviks and the parasitic Neocons which infested the party.

Whether the Democrats take one or both chambers, IMHO, I dont think they will keep them for too long, not if the GOP does what it needs to do; that is, having Conservatives take the party back from the pretenders. Should that happen, you will see America go back to its Conservative values soon. If Conservatives dont step up to the plate and take back the party, then Democrats will be in control for quite a while. Since TRUE Republicans dont wish to see that, then they know what they have to do.....

Throw out the bums who wrecked the party. Any other choice is now unacceptable for Republicans, and I think they will now do what is right. If they do, I will finally be coming home in 2008. Its been a long absence for me, and to be honest, I AM just a little homesick for what the GOP once stood for. I honestly hope to see and stand with a true Conservative agenda once more.

 

[jfuh]

You're wrong Dan. I suppose we may part ways here.
This is not a victory for the Republicans, this is a victory for all Americans.
This election is a wonderful representation of just how sick all Americans are of the polarization. The neocons are out, the bushnevicks are out and American has taken one giant step back to the middle. Which to our fellow bushnevicks and apologetic republicans on this site is one step too far to the left.

Hopefully this is the new begining of a nation striving for cooperation and moderation vs polarization and finger pointing.

I'm optomistic and I hope that this is also a shift back to checks and balances for accountability and administrative transparency.

 

[Alastor]

As I write this, the GOP has lost the House, and is on track to also possibly lose the Senate, pending a recount in Virginia, and the results in Missouri (outcome either way is in doubt).

Why is this a victory for the Republican party? Because this marks the beginning of the end for the Bushneviks and the parasitic Neocons which infested the party.

Whether the Democrats take one or both chambers, IMHO, I dont think they will keep them for too long, not if the GOP does what it needs to do; that is, having Conservatives take the party back from the pretenders. Should that happen, you will see America go back to its Conservative values soon. If Conservatives dont step up to the plate and take back the party, then Democrats will be in control for quite a while. Since TRUE Republicans dont wish to see that, then they know what they have to do.....

Throw out the bums who wrecked the party. Any other choice is now unacceptable for Republicans, and I think they will now do what is right. If they do, I will finally be coming home in 2008. Its been a long absence for me, and to be honest, I AM just a little homesick for what the GOP once stood for. I honestly hope to see and stand with a true Conservative agenda once more.

My feelings and thoughts exactly.

 

[jallman]

As I write this, the GOP has lost the House, and is on track to also possibly lose the Senate, pending a recount in Virginia, and the results in Missouri (outcome either way is in doubt).

Why is this a victory for the Republican party? Because this marks the beginning of the end for the Bushneviks and the parasitic Neocons which infested the party.

Whether the Democrats take one or both chambers, IMHO, I dont think they will keep them for too long, not if the GOP does what it needs to do; that is, having Conservatives take the party back from the pretenders. Should that happen, you will see America go back to its Conservative values soon. If Conservatives dont step up to the plate and take back the party, then Democrats will be in control for quite a while. Since TRUE Republicans dont wish to see that, then they know what they have to do.....

Throw out the bums who wrecked the party. Any other choice is now unacceptable for Republicans, and I think they will now do what is right. If they do, I will finally be coming home in 2008. Its been a long absence for me, and to be honest, I AM just a little homesick for what the GOP once stood for. I honestly hope to see and stand with a true Conservative agenda once more.

I couldn't agree more so long as they end the influence of the evangelicals along with Bush's influence.

 

[Iriemon]

I disagree that Bush represented a radical departure from conservativism, at least on the economics side. Bush was elected with full support of the conservatives based upon his tax-cut "supply-side" theory. Nobody was talking about slashing spending in 2000. I didn't read about any conservatives in 2000 criticisizing Bush for not slashing spending $500 billion before passing the tax cuts.

That is because it was a common, core conservative belief in the supply side voodoo economic theory that somehow you could slash taxes but there would be no effect on revenues and the economy would grow at stupendous rates. This was, and is, a core conservative economic belief -- you can read people spouting the same stuff even now in the economic threads. Bush promised us his tax cuts would not cause deficits, and no conservative stood up and said, no wait, we have to slash spending otherwise we'll have big deficits. And that belief in Reagan's voodoo economics has been Bush's faith all along.

But just like in the 80s, voodoo economics didn't work in the 00s. Economic performance over the past 5, 3, or 1 years has been no better than it was before the tax cuts. What we got instead, just like in the 80s, was plummeting revenues that were the major factor in the additional $3 trillion debt we now have.

After this costly economic experiment failed again, conservatives are using Bush as a scapegoat, now criticizing him because he didn't slash Govt spending. But that was never the conservative plan.

The failure of the Republican economic supply side policy which has put our country another $3 trillion in debt wasn't a failure because Bush departed from conservative economics.

It was a failure of conservative supply side theory. Again.

Foreign policy is a different issue -- but I don't recall many conservatives standing up and questioning Bush on Iraq. Far too few Democrats did too, I agree.

 

[Psychoclown]

I agree this loss represents a great opportunity for the Republican party to clean house. Dump the fear tactics, trivial wedge issues, character assassination, and politics of division. Go back to core Republican values of small government, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and a respect for traditional values without shoving them down our throats.

The thing we're going to need is new, fresh leadership. Anyone associated with the Bush Administration is toast in the public's eye. I'm not sure who is on the horizion, but I hope someone is.

There are a lot of issues the Dems could address in the next few years that could be parlayed into building a new Democratic majority, but it would take the Dems moving away from the far left, putting aside partisan politics of payback, and showing some actual discipline within the party. I sincerely hope the Dems can do this, as it would give people like me an actual choice at the ballot box, but given their history I'm skeptical at best about the Dems chances. If/when they blow it, a rejuvenated Republican Party would be poised to reclaim their mandate. Of course, given the way the Reps have been acting, I'm not sure they have the fortitude to regroup and reassess.

 

[Psychoclown]

I disagree that Bush represented a radical departure from conservativism, at least on the economics side. Bush was elected with full support of the conservatives based upon his tax-cut "supply-side" theory. Nobody was talking about slashing spending in 2000. I didn't read about any conservatives in 2000 criticisizing Bush for not slashing spending $500 billion before passing the tax cuts.

That is because it was a common, core conservative belief in the supply side voodoo economic theory that somehow you could slash taxes but there would be no effect on revenues and the economy would grow at stupendous rates. This was, and is, a core conservative economic belief -- you can read people spouting the same stuff even now in the economic threads. Bush promised us his tax cuts would not cause deficits, and no conservative stood up and said, no wait, we have to slash spending otherwise we'll have big deficits. And that belief in Reagan's voodoo economics has been Bush's faith all along.

But just like in the 80s, voodoo economics didn't work in the 00s. Economic performance over the past 5, 3, or 1 years has been no better than it was before the tax cuts. What we got instead, just like in the 80s, was plummeting revenues that were the major factor in the additional $3 trillion debt we now have.

After this costly economic experiment failed again, conservatives are using Bush as a scapegoat, now criticizing him because he didn't slash Govt spending. But that was never the conservative plan.

The failure of the Republican economic supply side policy which has put our country another $3 trillion in debt wasn't a failure because Bush departed from conservative economics.

It was a failure of conservative supply side theory. Again.

Foreign policy is a different issue -- but I don't recall many conservatives standing up and questioning Bush on Iraq. Far too few Democrats did too, I agree.

I'm not sure tax cuts are the reason for our deficit problems. We've added massive spending to the budget - the war, homeland security, NCLB, prescription drugs, and massive amounts of pork. The economy was trending downward when Bush came into office and 9/11 certainly made things worse, but we've rebounded. The stock market is growing again and unemployment and inflation are both at low levels. Interest rates are also still relatively low. All in all, the signs are good. I'd say the economy is still fragile, but we're in a good position to move forward with continued growth.

 

[PoliticalActivist]

:damn Its a shame that the Republicians can't accept that they lost the house and senate by wanting a recount :lol However if it was the other way around (like when Bush stole Florida & Ohio) the Republicians would be singing a different tune. I am happy for the Republicians too. Because I do not have to put up with they S**t next year. Also thank GOD my great state of Michigan is all democratic (both the house and senate). Now all we need is a good candidate to kick Bush's a** out of office.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Now all we need is a good candidate to kick Bush's a** out of office.

:lol: Yes, all you need is a good candidate and Bush won't get re-elected.




:roll:

 

[dragonslayer]

If we could get the NeoCon trash out of the Republican party, it might be safe for Americans to once again be a Moderate Republican.

Us NeoCons can start our own Party.

The New Fascist Terrorist party of America. Since we don't support American Values and traditions, we can now work openly to destroy America.
Hurray for Bush and the rest of us NeoCons.

 

[Iriemon]

I'm not sure tax cuts are the reason for our deficit problems. We've added massive spending to the budget - the war, homeland security, NCLB, prescription drugs, and massive amounts of pork. The economy was trending downward when Bush came into office and 9/11 certainly made things worse, but we've rebounded. The stock market is growing again and unemployment and inflation are both at low levels. Interest rates are also still relatively low. All in all, the signs are good. I'd say the economy is still fragile, but we're in a good position to move forward with continued growth.

After the tax cuts revenues fells hundreds of billions annually.

The economy is doing fine, has been doing fine for three years. The only problem with the economy for many is that the benefits of the growth have gone to the wealthier but not the poorer.

But at the same time, this Administration has been loading up debt, almost $3 trillion since it took office. Annual interest expense is $400 billion a year and growing rapidly (a 15% increase last year).

If the tax cuts were passed as Bush told us to stimulate the economy when it slowed down in 2001, there is no justification for burdening the nation with debt now when thing are going well. And it is harming the future of the nation.

 

[Alastor]

I disagree that Bush represented a radical departure from conservativism, at least on the economics side.

Let's see... I'm a Conservative, and my economic values are...

Smaller federal government
Economic equality
Lower taxes
Fiscal responsibility
Free Market (including subsidizations, trade barriers, production barriers, etc)

And the list could go on, but those are my top five (and usually are for Conservatives)...

So which one of those has he not completely screwed up or done the complete opposite of?

If we're looking strictly at the economics, he looks more like a Democrat than any Democrat I've seen in decades except that rather than giving the tax breaks and great grants and subsidizations to the poor, he gave them to the absurdly wealthy. Other than that though, on paper he's anything but Conservative by my definition (and the one that's defined our party for decades).

 

[danarhea]

Let's see... I'm a Conservative, and my economic values are...

Smaller federal government
Economic equality
Lower taxes
Fiscal responsibility
Free Market (including subsidizations, trade barriers, production barriers, etc)

And the list could go on, but those are my top five (and usually are for Conservatives)...

So which one of those has he not completely screwed up or done the complete opposite of?

If we're looking strictly at the economics, he looks more like a Democrat than any Democrat I've seen in decades except that rather than giving the tax breaks and great grants and subsidizations to the poor, he gave them to the absurdly wealthy. Other than that though, on paper he's anything but Conservative by my definition (and the one that's defined our party for decades).

Bingo. Somebody gets it. Of course the Neocons are not Conservative, in fact, their mentor, Irving Kristol, was a card carrying member of the Communist party.

 

[Iriemon]

Let's see... I'm a Conservative, and my economic values are...

Smaller federal government
Economic equality
Lower taxes
Fiscal responsibility
Free Market (including subsidizations, trade barriers, production barriers, etc)

And the list could go on, but those are my top five (and usually are for Conservatives)...

Disagree. I understand conservatives, like liberals, and different views and agendas and policy preferences. But few conservatives were calling for cutting spending (smaller federal government), economic equality, and fiscal responsibility in the 2000 or 2004 political campaigns. There was clearly a conservative consensus for the politically popular tax cuts, less so for free markets.

So which one of those has he not completely screwed up or done the complete opposite of?

Bush? Lower taxes. The easy one, that is popular and pandering to the electorate. He's been pretty free trade overall. The other areas represent areas that take political courage, I agree with you Bush and the Republicans were lacking in those areas.

If we're looking strictly at the economics, he looks more like a Democrat than any Democrat I've seen in decades except that rather than giving the tax breaks and great grants and subsidizations to the poor, he gave them to the absurdly wealthy. Other than that though, on paper he's anything but Conservative by my definition (and the one that's defined our party for decades).

Most Democrats over the past 20 years have been far more fiscally responsible. They are the ones calling for paygo, not Republicans. The Dems would not have voted to slashed taxes to pander to the electorate at the expense of running up over a trillion in debt.

 

[Iriemon]

Bingo. Somebody gets it. Of course the Neocons are not Conservative, in fact, their mentor, Irving Kristol, was a card carrying member of the Communist party.

The neocons ("con" standing for conservatives) are certainly not liberals, and there tenants of unilateralism and reliance on US military power for agressive foreign policy are far more in the conservative vein than the liberal view, which has been more based on multinationalism, international rule of law, and intenational consensus building.

 

[PoliticalActivist]

:doh A Great Republician Victory? Oh Boy....I see that this is another propaganda statement from the poor losers Republician party. To me its a victory for the Democratic party. We are now in control of the House and the Senate. Also to state that this is a Victory for everybody??? It all depends on what party one belong too. Not everyone happy because the Democrats won, and they know Bush is going to catch pure hell.

 

[danarhea]

The neocons ("con" standing for conservatives) are certainly not liberals, and there tenants of unilateralism and reliance on US military power for agressive foreign policy are far more in the conservative vein than the liberal view, which has been more based on multinationalism, international rule of law, and intenational consensus building.

You mean like Vietnam?

 

[Alastor]

You mean like Vietnam?

Heh. Nice retort. I'll add that the far right tends to want a strong military, but so do Democrats. The far right favors a strong military so that we can maintain an isolationist stance, however; not an aggressive foreign policy.

Remember that Bush got many many votes in 2000 by repeating that the U.S. was militarily involved in more nations in the world at that time than ever before in history. His stance on Israel was to "let the Middle East solve the Middle East's problems."

He made promisses to bring troops home and stop intervening in other people's wars and nations... And these statements (and others) are what won him the loyalty and passion of the far right that managed to elect him to office in the first place.

So no, I don't agree at all that the far right favors "an aggressive foriegn policy." I firmly believe that most analysts would state the contrary and they'd say the fir right favors an isolationist policy.

Multi-National Organizations, Alliances, Coalitions, Supra-National Organizations... It requires an aggressive foreign policy to build those things. One certainly CANNOT build those types of organizations without having a hyper-active foriegn policy to begin with. Organizations and groups that generally speaking, Republicans oppose or are dis-interested in.

Even if we were to define the entire gambit of "Foreign Policy" as "the willingness to use military force," I still wouldn't buy the argument that Republicans are any more or less apt to use military force than Democrats. History would support me here too.

But I don't define our foriegn policy that way anyway, and neither should anyone else.

I realize that this isn't exactly what Iriemon was trying to say (and for the most-part I agree with Iriemon's statement). It's just that the phrasing used was tricky and I felt someone might interpret the argument this way, so I went ahead and responded to it any way.