PDA

View Full Version : What's Wrong with Republicans?


Jeremy
05-08-2008, 05:46 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTdlNTIzZTI4NDMwYjcwZTIzZDkzMTMyNmE4YWEzYWE

On this great debate, I tend to agree with Mark Levin and others that conservatives should reach out with conservative principles better framed and presented, rather than change the message for the perceived advantage of the hour.

What the Republicans need is not an abandonment of conservative principles, but a smarter, more articulate defense of even more conservativism, not less.

E.g., Gas Prices? More nuclear power, hydro-, refineries, clean coal, drilling off coasts and in ANWR. And why? As a necessary bridge to next-generation cleaner and non-petroleum energy so that in the time lag, we don't empower our enemies, demand that others abroad who are less environmentally sound produce the oil we consume, and watch our hard-won way of life decline.

Taxes? Not hikes, since revenues went up, not down with past cuts, but more fiscal discipline to end the deficits. The problem was not tax-cutting, but wild-eyed spending that ran up debt and discredited tax cuts.

The border? Close it, not out nativism or racism, but out of respect for the rule of law, the tradition of national sovereignty, the need to promote integration and assimilation, the need to be more concerned with American entry-level low-paid workers, and a desire to help Mexico wean itself off remittances and make the tough-love decisions to modernize its archaic government and economy.

Judges? We need constitutionalists, because they alone follow the rules of the legislative branch and what is written in the Constitution, do not turn rarified, laboratory theory into the law that millions must suffer under, and bring respect to the judiciary sorely damaged by aristocratic elitists on the bench.

National Security? Not more U.N.ism, but careful explanations that both Iraq and Afghanistan have hurt jihadism, taken out odious regimes, and with patience will make the region safer.We need more reasoned and inspired explanation of just how the U.S. military allows the present globalized system of commerce and communications to survive, rather than asleep at the wheel reaction to cheap attacks on our foreign policy.

Ethics? Republicans by consensus in Washington need to be less tolerant of sleeze than Democrats, since conservatism and traditionalism are moral precepts. When they engage in tawdry sex, bribery, and influence peddling, they suffer the double wage of hypocrisy in the manner supposedly men-of-the-people liberals like Kerry, Gore, Edwards, and the Clintons talk one way and live like 18th-century French kings.

In short, low taxes, secure borders, moral governance, sober government spending, ethical leadership, exploration and conservation of petroleum, and strong defense is what the American public wants but those core principles have to be articulated hourly and can't be compromised. In an honest debate, Obama's alternatives to the above would be to turn toward more government, higher taxes, more bureacracies, more dependence of the individual upon the state, etc. And I can't believe the public wants a prescription that historically simply doesn't work.

I think in their depression, the Republicans fail to see that their problems were not in their principles, but rather in the sometimes sleezy and sloppy way they advanced them and even more often in the manner that they abandoned them and as a result, they are apparently eager to compromise on them.

To the degree McCain can articulate the above, he will win; to the degree that he either cannot or believes the latest gurus that he must abandon them, he will lose. Moving toward a lite version of the Obamian/European "bipartisan"and socialist view of government and calling it a new conservatism is a prescription for utter disaster.

No one can out-Obama Obama.

GBMelBlount
05-08-2008, 06:13 PM
This sums it up pretty well imho.

Jeremy
05-08-2008, 06:16 PM
This sums it up pretty well imho.

Just remember, this can from a website that isn't "very reputable."

Mosca
05-08-2008, 06:28 PM
I like conservatives. You can talk to conservatives, and they make sense.

The people I have a problem with are the fascists who have usurped the conservative ideal. They are every bit as reprehensible as the bubbleheaded socialists who usurped honorable liberalism.

Real Americans listen to their brothers and sisters. Real conservatives and liberals have an interest in absorbing some of each others' ideals; there is honor is being responsible, after all, and there is also honor in caring for the less fortunate.

Idiots try to pit Americans against each other. Real Americans see through this.

GBMelBlount
05-08-2008, 06:30 PM
Jeremy

Just remember, this can from a website that isn't "very reputable."


LOL. That was the first thing I looked at. That is just my opinion and I'm sure many people think different. Just like when I occasionally hear O'Reilly, Rush, or Coulter. I don't always agree with the delivery but I usually agree with their opinions and reasoning on the vast majority of issues and enjoy debating with people about them (the issues).

Jeremy
05-08-2008, 06:34 PM
I like conservatives. You can talk to conservatives, and they make sense.

The people I have a problem with are the fascists who have usurped the conservative ideal. They are every bit as reprehensible as the bubbleheaded socialists who usurped honorable liberalism.

Real Americans listen to their brothers and sisters. Real conservatives and liberals have an interest in absorbing some of each others' ideals; there is honor is being responsible, after all, and there is also honor in caring for the less fortunate.

Idiots try to pit Americans against each other. Real Americans see through this.

Most Americans are moderates. That's just the simple truth. The want common sense solutions.

The problem is that there are hardly any poiticians out there offering common sense. Dick Lugar does it. Chuck Hagel does it. But Lugar is getting on in years and Hagel is retiring.

Preacher
05-08-2008, 07:21 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTdlNTIzZTI4NDMwYjcwZTIzZDkzMTMyNmE4YWEzYWE

On this great debate, I tend to agree with Mark Levin and others that conservatives should reach out with conservative principles better framed and presented, rather than change the message for the perceived advantage of the hour.

What the Republicans need is not an abandonment of conservative principles, but a smarter, more articulate defense of even more conservativism, not less.

E.g., Gas Prices? More nuclear power, hydro-, refineries, clean coal, drilling off coasts and in ANWR. And why? As a necessary bridge to next-generation cleaner and non-petroleum energy so that in the time lag, we don't empower our enemies, demand that others abroad who are less environmentally sound produce the oil we consume, and watch our hard-won way of life decline.

Taxes? Not hikes, since revenues went up, not down with past cuts, but more fiscal discipline to end the deficits. The problem was not tax-cutting, but wild-eyed spending that ran up debt and discredited tax cuts.

The border? Close it, not out nativism or racism, but out of respect for the rule of law, the tradition of national sovereignty, the need to promote integration and assimilation, the need to be more concerned with American entry-level low-paid workers, and a desire to help Mexico wean itself off remittances and make the tough-love decisions to modernize its archaic government and economy.

Judges? We need constitutionalists, because they alone follow the rules of the legislative branch and what is written in the Constitution, do not turn rarified, laboratory theory into the law that millions must suffer under, and bring respect to the judiciary sorely damaged by aristocratic elitists on the bench.

National Security? Not more U.N.ism, but careful explanations that both Iraq and Afghanistan have hurt jihadism, taken out odious regimes, and with patience will make the region safer.We need more reasoned and inspired explanation of just how the U.S. military allows the present globalized system of commerce and communications to survive, rather than asleep at the wheel reaction to cheap attacks on our foreign policy.

Ethics? Republicans by consensus in Washington need to be less tolerant of sleeze than Democrats, since conservatism and traditionalism are moral precepts. When they engage in tawdry sex, bribery, and influence peddling, they suffer the double wage of hypocrisy in the manner supposedly men-of-the-people liberals like Kerry, Gore, Edwards, and the Clintons talk one way and live like 18th-century French kings.

In short, low taxes, secure borders, moral governance, sober government spending, ethical leadership, exploration and conservation of petroleum, and strong defense is what the American public wants but those core principles have to be articulated hourly and can't be compromised. In an honest debate, Obama's alternatives to the above would be to turn toward more government, higher taxes, more bureacracies, more dependence of the individual upon the state, etc. And I can't believe the public wants a prescription that historically simply doesn't work.

I think in their depression, the Republicans fail to see that their problems were not in their principles, but rather in the sometimes sleezy and sloppy way they advanced them and even more often in the manner that they abandoned them and as a result, they are apparently eager to compromise on them.

To the degree McCain can articulate the above, he will win; to the degree that he either cannot or believes the latest gurus that he must abandon them, he will lose. Moving toward a lite version of the Obamian/European "bipartisan"and socialist view of government and calling it a new conservatism is a prescription for utter disaster.

No one can out-Obama Obama.

I absolutely agree.

In short, Levin is calling for another Reagan. Because that is exactly what he did.

Jeremy
05-08-2008, 07:50 PM
I absolutely agree.

In short, Levin is calling for another Reagan. Because that is exactly what he did.

Well then he must hate McCain, 'cause damn sure ain't Reagan.

revefsreleets
05-08-2008, 08:17 PM
Arianna Huffington has pretty much joined in this cause. Funny what alliances hate and ignorance will breed. The far right and the far left finally united against the "common enemy".

ShutDown24
05-08-2008, 08:22 PM
What the Republicans need is not an abandonment of conservative principles, but a smarter, more articulate defense of even more conservativism, not less.

This is a little bit off topic but what politics needs is less people who worry about political parties, and more about the individual politician. Until democrats and republicans can get their heads out of their asses and not treat our government like two privately organized clubs warring against each other, nothing is going to change. And message board crusades won't help the cause.

Preacher
05-08-2008, 09:01 PM
Arianna Huffington has pretty much joined in this cause. Funny what alliances hate and ignorance will breed. The far right and the far left finally united against the "common enemy".

:chuckle:

I thought they already did against the common enemy of the constitution?!

stillers4me
05-08-2008, 09:02 PM
This is a little bit off topic but what politics needs is less people who worry about political parties, and more about the individual politician. Until democrats and republicans can get their heads out of their asses and not treat our government like two privately organized clubs warring against each other, nothing is going to change. And message board crusades won't help the cause.

Or change anybodys mind.

Preacher
05-08-2008, 09:03 PM
Or change anybodys mind.

Never a truer word.

HometownGal
05-08-2008, 09:53 PM
This is a little bit off topic but what politics needs is less people who worry about political parties, and more about the individual politician. Until democrats and republicans can get their heads out of their asses and not treat our government like two privately organized clubs warring against each other, nothing is going to change. And message board crusades won't help the cause.

Agreed 100% Shut Down. :thumbsup:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-09-2008, 01:17 AM
Look at the candidate............And it sums up the republicans beliefs

Republican: Old white male...
Democrate: Young black male, White female.............(democrats are not afraid of change and embrace it)

augustashark
05-09-2008, 02:29 AM
can't remember if our sec of state is white or not? hmmmmm, damn, still can't remember. Oh well, you're right the dems are the party of change.

GBMelBlount
05-09-2008, 09:20 PM
Look at the candidate............And it sums up the republicans beliefs

Republican: Old white male...
Democrate: Young black male, White female.............(democrats are not afraid of change and embrace it)

:shake01:

Jeremy
05-10-2008, 12:41 AM
It isn't any dumber than this little nugget.


can't remember if our sec of state is white or not? hmmmmm, damn, still can't remember. Oh well, you're right the dems are the party of change.

augustashark
05-10-2008, 02:26 AM
It isn't any dumber than this little nugget.

Thanks "jackass"! love the av.

Jeremy
05-10-2008, 10:52 AM
Thanks "jackass"! love the av.

I wouldn't expect someone like you to recognize the symbol of the Bull Moose Party. Hell, I wouldn't expect someone like you to know what the Bull Moose Party was without looking it up.

Polamalu Princess
05-11-2008, 08:24 PM
Jeremy, have you ever been wrong?

Preacher
05-11-2008, 08:43 PM
Jeremy, have you ever been wrong?

:toofunny:

Actually... he was quite a bit better this go around.

BettisFan
05-11-2008, 09:04 PM
Go Obama!

That is all

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-11-2008, 10:27 PM
Whats wrong with Republicans?:rofl:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-11-2008, 10:30 PM
Go Obama!

That is all

:tt02:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2008, 09:26 AM
Another "indoctrination" post.... I thank the Good Lord everynight that some people didn't choose "Teacher" as a profession.:doh:

TackleMeBen
05-12-2008, 09:29 AM
What's Wrong with Republicans?

they just need a woman running the party...lol:flap:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2008, 09:30 AM
What's Wrong with Republicans?

they just need a woman running the party...lol:flap:

LOL!!!...Not all of us can be Democrats.

....someone has to work.

TackleMeBen
05-12-2008, 09:39 AM
LOL!!!...Not all of us can be Democrats.

....someone has to work.
i am not a democrat..lol...:flap:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2008, 09:41 AM
i am not a democrat..lol...:flap:

I know....just holding on to the coat tail of your last post.:hug:

TackleMeBen
05-12-2008, 09:47 AM
I know....just holding on to the coat tail of your last post.:hug:
ok,then let go of my coat tail .. i need it :flap:

Dino 6 Rings
05-12-2008, 12:09 PM
I like to make my politics simple.

Democrats want to give people fish.

Republicans want to teach people to fish on their own.

Whichever is your way to go, peace be with you.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2008, 01:50 PM
I like to make my politics simple.

Democrats want to give people fish.

Republicans want to teach people to fish on their own.

Whichever is your way to go, peace be with you.

Good analogy....just wish the Dems didnt feel the need to come to my side of the riverbank, take my hard earned "fish" and distribute it to those who are sitting under the shade tree watching me.

Dino 6 Rings
05-12-2008, 01:55 PM
Good analogy....just wish the Dems didnt feel the need to come to my side of the riverbank, take my hard earned "fish" and distribute it to those who are sitting under the shade tree watching me.

Yep, it gets annoying. People who give their own fish, without being asked to the down and out people of the world without wanting anything back are called Christians. People who take my fish, or your fish, and give it to others, are called Communists.

I also wish Republicans would hand out fishing poles at least, but they don't do that either. They teach you how to fish, but don't help you get the tools. You're pretty much on your own.

Its a tough country, only those who are ready to pick themselves up after being knocked down will succeed. That's life. I'll take it as it is.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2008, 02:06 PM
Yep, it gets annoying. People who give their own fish, without being asked to the down and out people of the world without wanting anything back are called Christians. People who take my fish, or your fish, and give it to others, are called Communists.

I also wish Republicans would hand out fishing poles at least, but they don't do that either. They teach you how to fish, but don't help you get the tools. You're pretty much on your own.

Its a tough country, only those who are ready to pick themselves up after being knocked down will succeed. That's life. I'll take it as it is.

Exactly...and let ME decide who I want to give my fish to. If someone is down and out through no fault of their own or through a bad decision that they are trying to correct... and they need that helping hand to get back on the right track...I'm there.

If your plan is to live off society instead of being a productive member of society...than you reap what you sow...

Mosca
05-14-2008, 11:38 AM
I like to make my politics simple.

Democrats want to give people fish.

Republicans want to teach people to fish on their own.

Whichever is your way to go, peace be with you.

Not quite right. Dems want to give fish to people who can't fish; Reps want to sell those fish to them, otherwise f' em, let them starve.

Now stay with me here... let the analogy sink in... both are a little bit right and a little bit wrong. The problem with either choice is that it won't work in all cases, and Dems and Reps are trying to make "fish" a national issue in order to pander for votes. It is better to let some issues be handled on a community level. When done that way, sometimes Reps will give fish to the needy (many staffers at food kitchens are Reps), and sometimes Dems will give them a pole and start teaching (there are scores of community initiatives manned by Dems).

The problem is that community issues have been usurped by national politicians. The only true national issues should be defense, national economic policy, and issues between states. Occasionally citizens' rights should be addressed.

GBMelBlount
05-14-2008, 11:44 AM
The problem is that community issues have been usurped by national politicians.

Good point. It is harder to micromanage on a national level. The larger the one-size fits all program, and the farther removed it is, the less effective it usually is imo.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-14-2008, 11:55 AM
:shake01:

Am I wrong?

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-14-2008, 12:13 PM
Not quite right. Dems want to give fish to people who can't fish; Reps want to sell those fish to them, otherwise f' em, let them starve.

Now stay with me here... let the analogy sink in... both are a little bit right and a little bit wrong. The problem with either choice is that it won't work in all cases, and Dems and Reps are trying to make "fish" a national issue in order to pander for votes. It is better to let some issues be handled on a community level. When done that way, sometimes Reps will give fish to the needy (many staffers at food kitchens are Reps), and sometimes Dems will give them a pole and start teaching (there are scores of community initiatives manned by Dems).

The problem is that community issues have been usurped by national politicians. The only true national issues should be defense, national economic policy, and issues between states. Occasionally citizens' rights should be addressed.

i agree with some of what you say...but I still see waaaaayyy to many people who could be fishing...who are living in government substidized "ponds" ...and driving better "bassboats" than those who are actually fishing for a living.

They could be fishing ....but they wallow in a culture of dependence.

(I'm going to Long John Silvers for lunch)

GBMelBlount
05-14-2008, 12:27 PM
Am I wrong?

It depends. Are you implying by saying "old & white" to mean rich? Because based on your other posts, that is what I am inferring. If that is not what you mean, please state EXACTLY what your point is.

Dino 6 Rings
05-14-2008, 12:28 PM
Not quite right. Dems want to give fish to people who can't fish; Reps want to sell those fish to them, otherwise f' em, let them starve.

Now stay with me here... let the analogy sink in... both are a little bit right and a little bit wrong. The problem with either choice is that it won't work in all cases, and Dems and Reps are trying to make "fish" a national issue in order to pander for votes. It is better to let some issues be handled on a community level. When done that way, sometimes Reps will give fish to the needy (many staffers at food kitchens are Reps), and sometimes Dems will give them a pole and start teaching (there are scores of community initiatives manned by Dems).

The problem is that community issues have been usurped by national politicians. The only true national issues should be defense, national economic policy, and issues between states. Occasionally citizens' rights should be addressed.

See, now, that's complicating my simplistic view on politics. I disagree with your statement that Repubs want to sell the fish. The Repubs want a free market that allow people with extra fish to sell them to those who decide not to fish on their own. The Dems would want to tax the fish being sold, so that for every 10 sold, the Dems get 3 or more to Give away to those who decide not to fish on their own.

Fishing for yourself or have fish given to you is the national issue. Now in a free market, the fisherman would be able to set his prices. But also in a free market another fisherman could price his fish lower, and cause competition. That's the goal of the true republicans. But with Dems raising taxes on Fisherman, and taking their hard earned fish to give to other people, the Fisherman has to raise the price of the fish that he has left after taxes, in order to make his money. That drives cost up.

Basically, Dems = Higher Taxes = Bad.
Republicans = Lower Taxes = Good.

At least, that's how I see things...then again. I wear really really dark shades and tend to stare at the sun when I'm bored.

Mosca
05-14-2008, 12:46 PM
At least, that's how I see things...then again. I wear really really dark shades and tend to stare at the sun when I'm bored.

:sofunny: :sofunny:

I liked that....

Mosca
05-14-2008, 12:48 PM
Problems start when overseas fishermen decide to come here and sell their fish for far less than what it costs our fisherment ot just get out on the water..... and non-fishermen decide they don't care where the fish come from, or even worse, decide that they think the cheaper fish are better.

stillers4me
05-14-2008, 01:02 PM
This whole thing is starting to smell fishy to me.

And the fish stinks from the head down.

Dino 6 Rings
05-14-2008, 02:55 PM
Yeah! Don't even get me started on the Tuna Industry, buch of Dolphin killers that lot.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-14-2008, 03:23 PM
At some point I think we have Democrats selling fishermen to starving lobbyists...and Republicans fishing for free market community initiatives.....:willy:

stillers4me
05-14-2008, 03:28 PM
At some point I think we have Democrats selling fishermen to starving lobbyists...and Republicans fishing for free market community initiatives.....:willy:

I think I'll take up golf.................... :sofunny:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-14-2008, 03:35 PM
I think I'll take up golf.................... :sofunny:

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The little balls get stuck in the blowholes of dolphins and whales!!!!!!!

Good Lord...WHAT are you thinking?

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-14-2008, 03:44 PM
It depends. Are you implying by saying "old & white" to mean rich? Because based on your other posts, that is what I am inferring. If that is not what you mean, please state EXACTLY what your point is.

I did not say rich. I said old and white.........

GBMelBlount
05-14-2008, 04:02 PM
I did not say rich. I said old and white.........

So what is your point?

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-14-2008, 06:11 PM
So what is your point?

Im saying that the republicans are running on their typical campaing.....
Thats all....

I think it says something of the democrats to have the candidates that they do right now.......Moving forward.........CHANGE.

GBMelBlount
05-14-2008, 07:06 PM
Im saying that the republicans are running on their typical campaing.....
Thats all....

I think it says something of the democrats to have the candidates that they do right now.......Moving forward.........CHANGE.


I'm not really sure what you're saying here. "Typical campaign." That is very vague and doesn't tell me anything. Also, what exactly do you mean by "moving forward" and "CHANGE." That really says nothing to me. If you're a democrat that is fine. I have friends on this board that are more liberal than I am. They are respectful, intelligent, articulate and make some good points. I respect that. But if your going to to post, please don't just take vague potshots at conservatives, and call me 'ignorant," please post something that makes sense, is understandable, and that we can actually discuss.

Mosca
05-14-2008, 09:11 PM
Uhhhh. doesn't it make sense for the conservative party to offer... a conservative candidate? I mean, that's what they stand for.

That's what it's all about. The virtue of the comfortable and trusted, but with a strategy that has been faltering lately, versus the virtue of something different... but unsure of whether it will be BETTER.

Simple concepts, but there is a lot to think about there. There is much to be said in favor of trusting what we've had... and much to fear about it. And there is much to be said about the new and different... and much to fear about it.

That is why we should be careful, we should listen for ourselves, we shouldn't trust pundits, talking heads, and ideologues who will fill our heads with poison. Find the candidates words, listen to them and watch them yourself, and keep your own counsel above all others; that way you can make the best choice for yourself when you enter the voting booth.

This will be my 9th presidential election, and I've never missed a vote. Those of you who think I'm a flaming liberal might be surprised to know that I've voted for more Republicans than Democrats over the years; a good Republican president is a better steward than a bad Democratic one, and vice versa; a good Dem is a better steward than a bad Rep. I can't sit here and write that I've voted for all the winners, but I can tell you that I took it seriously. A lot more seriously than I take party loyalty.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-14-2008, 10:54 PM
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. "Typical campaign." That is very vague and doesn't tell me anything. Also, what exactly do you mean by "moving forward" and "CHANGE." That really says nothing to me. If you're a democrat that is fine. I have friends on this board that are more liberal than I am. They are respectful, intelligent, articulate and make some good points. I respect that. But if your going to to post, please don't just take vague potshots at conservatives, and call me 'ignorant," please post something that makes sense, is understandable, and that we can actually discuss.


Did i call you ignorant?

verks36
05-15-2008, 12:37 AM
One word to answer this very easy question

What is wrong with the republicans?

Nothing.

revefsreleets
05-15-2008, 08:09 PM
I'm going to post this unattributed, then post the link later...but the article is, again, spot on and just common sense. Jeremy would be proud (is proud, as I'm sure he's lurking)

It's been a blast, this presidential campaign. A great story, full of drama. But no one should think it's been honest. With the possible exception of Iraq — where candidates are compelled to face real issues — the campaign has been an exercise in mass merchandising.

Candidates make alluring promises (to ''fix the economy,'' ''defeat special interests'' or ''achieve energy independence'') and offer freebies to voters (more tax cuts, health care, college aid). Complete the sale: That's the point.

There's a vast gap between the country's problems and the candidates' agendas and rhetoric. The candidates dissemble because they believe that Americans don't want the truth. It would be too upsetting.

They're probably right. Let's imagine what a candidate inoculated with truth serum might say. This gauges the distance between what Sens. Clinton, Obama and McCain are saying and what they should be saying. Here's the abbreviated stump speech:

Fellow Americans, I know you worry about the economy. So do I. But, frankly, if you elect me, I won't do much about it. It's a $14 trillion economy. Every three months, 7 million Americans change jobs. Presidents aren't powerful enough to steer this colossus.

Sure, we can pass ''stimulus'' programs, but if we overdo it — as we did in the 1970s — we will make the economy worse. Believe me, presidents would prevent recessions if they could.

What we can do is preserve an economic climate that favors long-term growth. That means holding down the tax burden to maintain incentives for work and investments.

We're already running a $400 billion deficit or so; some broad-based tax increases may be needed. This will disappoint conservatives, who think no one should pay taxes, and liberals, who think only the rich should pay them. But we must also cut spending, because unless we do, the future tax increases will be crushing.

Of necessity, spending cuts should focus on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These programs are projected to grow from about 45 percent of the present budget to 70 percent over a couple of decades.

Paying for that exclusively with taxes would be devastating for the economy and our children. Paying exclusively by cutting other programs would gut vital government services. I admit that raising eligibility ages for baby boomers and cutting some benefits are unfair. People should have received more warning. But our politicians have so dawdled that there's no warning time left.

We've also dawdled on energy. No one likes $125 a barrel oil. Last year, we paid an average price of $64 a barrel for imports. Some blame the oil companies, but the truth is that we're all to blame. Americans like cheap gasoline and big vehicles. Nothing was done to dampen consumption. Meanwhile, Congress restricted new oil and gas exploration on environmental grounds. So, demand rose and supply fell. In 1985, we imported 4 million barrels of oil a day; now that's 12 million.

''Energy independence'' is a fraud. We simply use too much foreign oil. All we can do is limit our dependence by shifting to more-efficient vehicles and increasing domestic production. But these measures will take years and have only modest effects.

The same is true of global warming. Without major technological breakthroughs, making big cuts in greenhouse gases will be impossible.

Finally, let's discuss poverty. Everyone's against it, but hardly anyone admits that most of the increase in the past 15 years reflects immigration — new immigrants or children of recent immigrants. Unless we stop poor people from coming across our Southern border, legally and illegally, we won't reduce poverty. Period.

That doesn't mean we should try to expel the 12 million illegal immigrants already here — an impossible and morally dubious task. Many families have been here for years; many have American children. We need a pragmatic accommodation: Assimilate most people now here; shift future immigration to the highly skilled.

Vote for me. I'll tell the truth.

Of course, our hapless candidate would be dismissed as misinformed, offensive, possibly racist and, of course, unelectable. People say they value candor, but in practice, they don't.

Almost all our major national problems require patience: the capacity to take somewhat painful actions now to avoid greater future pain. In an ideal world, elections would help move public opinion toward such policies.

But that doesn't happen. Politics is mostly about immediate gratification — about offering up convenient scapegoats and instant solutions for voters' complaints, even if the villains and promises are often false. We in the media bless this process by treating much of the self-serving rhetoric with undeserved seriousness. Is it any wonder that our genuine problems persist year after year and, in the end, foster public cynicism?

revefsreleets
05-15-2008, 08:12 PM
http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/18963749.html

Robert Samuelson Washington Post

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-17-2008, 07:49 AM
I think it says something of the democrats to have the candidates that they do right now.......Moving forward.........CHANGE.

In some place that's not called "best candidate"....its called a casting call...

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-17-2008, 10:38 AM
In some place that's not called "best candidate"....its called a casting call...

True!

As a democrate........I would take either candidate........I really do like them both.
I myself voted for Hillary.........but would be fine with oboma.

I think that Oboma has a better chance because there are so many people out there that would not vote for hillary jsut because she a "clinton"

I am facinated with how close this election is....Hopefully there will be many "first time voters", and people will realize how important it is to vote (both democrats and republicans)

I do like McCain, and i do not think that he would be a bad president (like bush is).
The only thing that I do not like about McCain is his recent approval of Bush's economic policy. I think it would be better for him to distance himself from Bush.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-17-2008, 01:46 PM
True!

As a democrate........I would take either candidate........I really do like them both.
I myself voted for Hillary.........but would be fine with oboma.

I think that Oboma has a better chance because there are so many people out there that would not vote for hillary jsut because she a "clinton"

I am facinated with how close this election is....Hopefully there will be many "first time voters", and people will realize how important it is to vote (both democrats and republicans)

I do like McCain, and i do not think that he would be a bad president (like bush is).
The only thing that I do not like about McCain is his recent approval of Bush's economic policy. I think it would be better for him to distance himself from Bush.

Being from Illinois I can tell you that ther is noone further "left" then Obama...Those of us who are looking at more substance then symbolism know that Obama doesnt have a record to even stand on.
Its all well and good to talk about "change"...but what does that mean? He is all empty rhetoric and emotionally charged sound bytes.

The Proverbial..."empty bag of gummie bears".

Atlanta Dan
05-17-2008, 03:41 PM
Being from Illinois I can tell you that ther is noone further "left" then Obama...Those of us who are looking at more substance then symbolism know that Obama doesnt have a record to even stand on.
Its all well and good to talk about "change"...but what does that mean? He is all empty rhetoric and emotionally charged sound bytes.

The Proverbial..."empty bag of gummie bears".

As opposed to the substance we get from the GOP:sofunny:

House Republicans may be heading off a cliff in November, but give them credit for perseverance. Even after the new slogan they floated -- "The Change You Deserve" -- was discovered to be trademarked ad copy for the antidepressant drug Effexor, GOP leaders decided to go with the rollout anyway.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403186.html

FordsnSteelers
05-17-2008, 03:47 PM
All the candidates will progress what Bush has already done ie; Patriot Act, more war, harsher taxes, etc. Im tired of people relying on the media to draw their decisons about this election. Media only blankets you and tells you what to think.

Do some research on Ron Paul, a republican but a real one. Not a McCain, Bush, or Reagen, but a true man for the constitution. i know most havent heard about him thats because the media has to censor him so that they wont lose money in the event he were to win. Check him out at ronpaul2008.com

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-18-2008, 07:47 AM
As opposed to the substance we get from the GOP:sofunny:

House Republicans may be heading off a cliff in November, but give them credit for perseverance. Even after the new slogan they floated -- "The Change You Deserve" -- was discovered to be trademarked ad copy for the antidepressant drug Effexor, GOP leaders decided to go with the rollout anyway.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403186.html

Wow...this post is so empty I can actually here an echo each time I read it.

GBMelBlount
05-18-2008, 07:52 AM
quite depressing, actually. *chuckle*

Atlanta Dan
05-18-2008, 08:36 AM
Wow...this post is so empty I can actually here an echo each time I read it.

Sorry my reference to the Washington Post story that illustrates both parties are guilty of empty sound bites disappointed you, but it was in response to this post

Its all well and good to talk about "change"...but what does that mean? He is all empty rhetoric and emotionally charged sound bytes.

The Proverbial..."empty bag of gummie bears".

It is hard to match the intellectual rigor of such observations, but not all of us are as erudite as you and have to work within our more limited abilities