Whoa! Is is time againg to pick on the sex offenders? Must be. It's been a few weeks since the last time somebody proposed arbitrarily singling out sex offenders. But, hey, maybe all of this will give McCain good press when he tries to run for President in 2008 on his warfreak platform. It's dead easy for America's mommies and daddies to be more afraid of the mythical "army of pedos" chasing their kids, rather than military recruiters.
In the meantime, if you have money, you can even avoid being placed on the sex-offender list (like for this guy). Our class war proceeds apace, and this nightmare is only going to continue until you wake up.
posted by GuestZero at 02:06 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 17, 2006 #
...because it's not like you can get another e-mail address for free or anything. OH WAIT. Hell, they don't even necessarily have to be actual accounts.
And I agree with GZ. Are sex offenders bastards? Hell yes. But we're all bastards in our own little ways. If we can give murderers second chances, then why are these guys forced into exile?
posted by TheTalentedMrC at 05:27 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 17, 2006 #
Another thing. 10 years for failing to comply with the law? Murderers often get less time than that. Our criminal justice system is messed up to the extreme.
I wonder how long it takes for Congress to try and legislate this for everyone under the guise of defending our country. An "important tool for law enforcement" to monitor US citizens on the internet to make sure there are no online terrorist connections. The Patriot Act, secret CIA prisons, domestic wiretapping, Internet registration and monitoring. Why not tiny cameras in our houses and cars? Why not a microchip in our brains so the government knows when somebody is even thinking of doing something bad. When are American citizens going to draw the line, or do they wish this upon themselves?
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 09:04 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 17, 2006 #
The old politico's adage: "Pssst. We'd better do something, someone might be watching."
posted by Darkseid at 10:42 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 17, 2006 #
The old politico's adage: "Pssst. We'd better do something, someone might be watching."
Obviously, as long as they distract us with this shit, we're not paying attention to the goddamned scumbag politicos, you know, being on the take, using the Constitution as toilet paper, breaking the laws they swore to uphold in the name of keeping their party in power, things like that. Who cares about any of that shit? The politicians just stopped those damn fags from marryin' each other, the child molesters from harming the kids we're not bothering to raise ourselves because takes two Wal-Mart incomes to even have a chance at raising a kid, and the terrorists from killing us all by spending a trillion dollars to invade and occupy a country, that while home to a dictator, didn't have any ties to Al-Qaeda or WMDs to attack us with.
Oh, and don't forget the fact that the government's allowed for "digital rights managment" and the "broadcast flag" so the media can tell the public what they can and can't record at what quality as part of the HDTV transition... over the public airwaves. Try to get around DRM/broadcast flag/copy protection so you can record and view your favorite shows or whatever, for your own private non-commercial use, and you'll spend ten years in pound-me-in-the-ass prison and be fined around a half million dollars. Illegally funnel illegally-gained money to illegally aid in the election of war criminals to run the entire nation, and the result is a slap on the wrist.
This nation has its priorities so messed up it's not even funny.
posted by anonymouscoward at 01:13 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
I'd love to see what they offer as a way to even achieve this.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 01:56 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
December 13, 2006 Think Progress blog posting titled "John McCain’s War On Blogs."
"John McCain has made clear that he doesn’t like the blogosphere. Now he has introduced legislation [PDF file] that would treat blogs like Internet service providers and hold them responsible for all activity in the comments sections and user profiles. Some highlights of the legislation:"
– Commercial websites and personal blogs “would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000.”
– Internet service providers (ISPs) are already required to issue such reports, but under McCain’s legislation, bloggers with comment sections may face “even stiffer penalties” than ISPs.
— Social networking sites will be forced to take “effective measures” — such as deleting user profiles — to remove any website that is “associated” with a sex offender. Sites may include not only Facebook and MySpace, but also Amazon.com, which permits author profiles and personal lists, and blogs like DailyKos, which allows users to sign up for personal diaries.
"Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that this proposal may be based more "on fear or political considerations rather than on the facts." When he introduced his legislation to the Senate, McCain offered no evidence that children are being victimized by people who post comments on blogs."
posted by jr at 08:08 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
Wow, jr, I haven't read up on that one. That's astounding. This country has its' priorities all messed up. I hope other countries really start raising some shit over Congress's continuous introduction of internet regulation laws. Not to mention, John McCain CONTINUOUSLY forgets that he knows NOTHING about the internet. This law wouldn't work anyways. Down with John McCain's presidential bid.
Land of the free and home of the brave is increasingly looking like land of the terrified and home of the stupid.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 08:36 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
Why not tiny cameras in our houses and cars? Why not a microchip in our brains so the government knows when somebody is even thinking of doing something bad.
Cost. Any politician harboring concerns for civilian privacy is definitely part of a rapidly shrinking minority.
posted by madjack at 09:16 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
– Commercial websites and personal blogs “would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000.”
– Internet service providers (ISPs) are already required to issue such reports, but under McCain’s legislation, bloggers with comment sections may face “even stiffer penalties” than ISPs.
— Social networking sites will be forced to take “effective measures” — such as deleting user profiles — to remove any website that is “associated” with a sex offender. Sites may include not only Facebook and MySpace, but also Amazon.com, which permits author profiles and personal lists, and blogs like DailyKos, which allows users to sign up for personal diaries.
I should also mention that for one Congress could only have the slightest possibility of enforcing such a law only on companies or websites with servers within the United States. Second, the repercussions of such a law would effectively eliminate commenting or posting on the websites listed above. If bloggers with comment sections are going to be responsible and face stiff fines for a user's comment, then the blogger is going to disable the commenting feature.
Thankfully, I don't think either law would pass because the uproar that would result would be so great that these Congressmen would wish they could curl up in a ball and die. However, it is still extremely scary to think these senators even have these thought processes. Where do we find these morons?
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 09:47 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
Some other examples of government regulating or attempting to control the Internet. It seems most of this big government legislation is lead by Republicans. Paging Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family.
March 15, 2006 - Internet civility bill stalled :
"A New Jersey lawmaker's attempt to legislate civility on an Internet discussion board runs into a wall of opposition from bloggers and others who saw it as an attempt to stifle free speech."
"Assemblyman Peter Biondi and his staff said they were trying to curb malicious exchanges on some local discussion boards when they introduced a bill requiring people to provide their real names and addresses before posting on public Web sites. The bill also stated that hosts could be sued for failing to disclose the identities of people disseminating false or defamatory information."
July 29, 2006 - 'Chat rooms could face expulsion' :
"Web sites like Amazon.com and MySpace.com may soon be inaccessible for many people using public terminals at American schools and libraries, thanks to the U.S. House of Representatives. By a 410-15 vote on Thursday, politicians approved [H.R. 5319] bill that would effectively require that "chat rooms" and "social networking sites" be rendered inaccessible to minors, an age group that includes some of the Internet's most ardent users. Adults can ask for permission to access the sites. [The bill would] amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require recipients of universal service support for schools and libraries to protect minors from commercial social networking websites and chat rooms."
October 13, 2006 - No more Party Poker :
"U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist [a Republican] pulled a "Taliban" of his own Friday night [Sep 29, 2006] by sneaking unrelated internet gambling provisions into a port security bill while removing key measures that would secure the nation's mass transit system. Proponents of the crackdown said the [Internet gambling] industry, which is mostly based overseas, provides a front for money laundering, some of it by drug sellers and terrorist groups, while preying on children and gambling addicts."
May 2, 2006 - Net Neutrality :
"In favor of network neutrality are such content providers as Amazon, eBay, Google, IAC/Interactive, Intel, Microsoft and Yahoo. Against network neutrality are network operators such as AT&T (formerly SBC and AT&T), Comcast, TimeWarner and Verizon. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AT&T, TimeWarner and Verizon are the 22nd, 27th and 32nd top campaign contributors, respectively, since 1989. Only one of the companies identified as being in favor of network neutrality, Microsoft, is in the top 100. Several of the anti-neutrality corporations have formed a group called "Hands Off the Internet" that has used folksy-looking viral ads to make its case."
"In 2006, Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Charles Pickering (R-Miss.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.) sponsored the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act, which contains network neutrality provisions. Each are recipients of large amounts campaign contributions from the telephone utilities industry, which includes most of the high-profile network utility opponents."
"The current legislation, backed by companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, would allow the firms to create different tiers of online service. They would be able to sell access to the express lane to deep-pocketed corporations and relegate everyone else to the digital equivalent of a winding dirt road. Worse still, these gatekeepers would determine who gets premium treatment and who doesn't."
"Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs. We would lose the opportunity to vastly expand access and distribution of independent news and community information through broadband television. More than 60 percent of Web content is created by regular people, not corporations."
Later news :
"The U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it."
"By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others."
Strange, or maybe not, how so many Republicans are interested in taking away freedoms by controlling the Internet with Big Government.
posted by jr at 10:32 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
And jr, thats one of the main things I've really been confused about with the Republican party. I thought the Republican Party was for small government (and in which case, I'd be on the side of Republicans), yet it's been Republicans who've created this bloated government with far reaching power into our lives (though the Democrats have passively gone with it).
This is one of the issues that absolutely enrages me. Soon, America will be like China where John McCain will require search engines to filter out certain websites.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 11:19 A.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
Maybe that's why the Republicans lost the House and Senate last month even though on the day after the 2004 presidential election, Tom DeLay, former Republican member of the House, said:
"The Republican Party is a permanent majority for the future of this country. We're going to be able to lead this country in the direction we've been dreaming of for years."
Yet, two years later, the voting public rightfully punctured that Republican balloon of arrogance. Permanent majority?
The definition of "permanent" is : existing perpetually; everlasting, esp. without significant change; intended to exist or function for a long, indefinite period without regard to unforeseeable conditions; long-lasting or nonfading.
It doesn't say "two years."
posted by jr at 12:54 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
Fair is fair...it's not just Republicans who want to limit free speech. This from Chuck Muth's New&Views newsletter:
"House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) has pledged to take up a lobbying reform proposal that would impose new regulations on speech by grassroots organizations, while providing a loophole in the rules for large corporations and labor unions," writes Amanda Carpenter of Human Events.
"The legislation would make changes to the legal definition of 'grassroots lobbying' and require any organization that encourages 500 or more members of the general public to contact their elected representatives to file a report with detailed information about their organization to the government on a quarterly basis.
"The report would include identifying the organization's expenditures, the issues focused on and the members of Congress and other federal officials who are the subject of the advocacy efforts. A separate report would be required for each policy issue the group is active on."
With over 1,000 registered users, does that mean that TT would have to report if someone on here urged readers to call their representative? hmmmmmm.....
posted by MaggieThurber at 01:29 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
That's fine, Maggie, but you would agree that the concept of "smaller government" is no longer an ideal of the national Republican Party, right?
If Democrats do something like this, that just feeds the stereotype created by conservatives. This type of Democrat-sponsored legislation is still wrong, and Republicans gleefully shout, "See, Democrats want Big Government!"
And supposedly, Republicans provide the public with an option by supporting smaller government, yet Republicans don't seem to have an explanation for all this Internet regulation. The Republican response is to point out something the Democrats are doing, like that justifies the actions by the Republicans.
How about Republicans focusing on themselves for a moment and answer the simple question of why they are supporting all this regulation of the Internet? I realize that some or maybe most of this regulation is due to the Republican party being hijacked by values voters. But what about personal responsibility? Is that also a belief no longer supported by the national Republican party?
posted by jr at 01:58 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
Well, the problem with the modern Republicans is that they are so aligned against Liberalism AND with "values", that they really haven't realized that they are creating enormous government. "Values voters" are not advocates of smaller and/or less government, since a government that intrudes in all social venues is a truly huge entity. At the ideal, "values voters" would like to see a cop in every home. Sure, they imagine that you'll end up scared enough by their gulags, secret police and mass graves so that you'll effectively be your own policeman, and control your actions (even thoughts) in the Orwellian ideal. However, it never works like that. Terrorized populations resist in all kinds of ways. America itself is far too large to rule with fear.
So "values voters" only lead the nation down the path to Fascism, in the mistaken impression that their particular axis of evil can actually legislate (even force) morality.
We really can't wholly blame the Republican Whores (i.e. politicians) for simply responding to the Fascist demands of their core constituency. For each warlord you shoot, there will be 10 more men to step into his shoes, and then another 100 men behind them working for such a repressive regime. The force of all those rightwingnuts is the real social actor here. America is just mentally ill with rightwing nuttery. It causes one to wish for a pharmaceutical ... because if America doesn't stop worshipping extremism (right- OR left-wing), then a civil war is certain to result.
posted by GuestZero at 04:00 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
jr - I wasn't trying to deflect attention from the Republicans who are sponsoring such ridiculous things. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I was merely pointing out that it's a problem on both sides of the aisle. We all need to be diligent in recognizing the infringements on our free speech - regardless of party - otherwise, we'll get caught up in party conflicts and, while doing so, we, the public, will end up losing.
And I'd make a small distinction, jr, about the Republican Party's philosophy of smaller government. I do believe it's still a priority of the majority of those who call themselves Republicans, even if many of our leaders in elective office or in the national party structure no longer practice it.
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:00 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
Absolutely Maggie, this is a problem on both sides of the isle. While Republicans were in control, Democrats passively passed most of their junk laws. Also, this bill is sponsored both by Republican John McCain and Democrat Charles Shumer. The problem is on both sides of the isle. However, I think this bill would pass much more easily in a Republican Congress rather than a Democrat one.
If the majority of those who call themselves Republicans still believe in those ideals, you and that majority need to take back your party. Small government should be an ideal on both sides of the isle, unfortunately, it's on neither.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 05:28 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
T++...agreed. easier said than done, though..
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:48 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
then a civil war is certain to result.
Which is likely to happen after the great depression II. I think GZ got it right at the end. The US is effectively a two party system, and it is the responsibility of both Democrats and Republicans to get rid of the wing nuts and moon bats.
posted by madjack at 09:30 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 18, 2006 #
GZ: At the ideal, "values voters" would like to see a cop in every home.
No, they would like to BE the cop in every home, because most of them are either ultrafundie-Xtians who get off on being holier-than-thou, or power-hungry attention-whores with security issues, like the right-wing windbags and talking heads who advocate this garbage on their radio and TV shows... Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, O'Reilly, Robertson, Falwell, etc. The list of whackos on the left wing is shorter, or at least less visible/well known. The left-wing side, as far as I can see it, is a lot less nasty in that they're not racial or religious-discriminating assholes. On the other hand, they're going too far with their "good intentions" to for example "protect our children from predators" and "protect us from secondhand smoke" and "prevent an obesity epidemic" and all that.
T++:
If the majority of those who call themselves Republicans still believe in those ideals, you and that majority need to take back your party.
AMEN!
And none of this bullshit about how you're suddenly a Libertarian. I think this is a bumpersticker now:
"Libertarianism is just anarchy for the rich."
posted by anonymouscoward at 01:27 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 19, 2006 #
This is a very interesting discussion. Let me offer my perspective. I am a democrat on the fringe. If it were 1973, I would be a republican, but the neo-cons have taken over the republican party and made it into something it has not historically believed in. The neo-cons are a religious bunch, more concerned about socially conservative values, than economically conservative values. Is Roe v. Wade to blame, more than likely, but the fact is that historically, republicans believed in social and economic freedom. Now the neo-cons have embraced this moral infringement on people, and I think they have lost their way. The democrats, on the other hand, have always believed in the interference of social and economic rights. They historically supported segregation, welfare, and various other programs that created economic equality and social inequality. However, the neo-cons have opened the door for democrats to embrace social freedom because the neo-cons morally object to certain social freedoms. This is obviously evident in the conversion of the southern majority turning democrat to republican. Some food for thought, Richard Nixon would be a democrat by today's standards. Regardless, the republicans need to oust the neo-cons, and get back to their roots. The current administration is evidence of a very conflicted republican party. They support tax cuts when spending more than ever, and they support the reduction of civil liberties. Very conflicted indeed. And the old republicans don't know what to do, right maggie?
posted by junta330 at 02:09 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 19, 2006 #
Mags said: “And I'd make a small distinction, jr, about the Republican Party's philosophy of smaller government. I do believe it's still a priority of the majority of those who call themselves Republicans, even if many of our leaders in elective office or in the national party structure no longer practice it.”
That may be a small distinction, but it's a critical one. Isn't that just a funny way of you saying that the Republican Party is out of the control of its constituency? If so, what do you intend to do about it, Mags?
As for the Democratic Party being similarly out of control of the progressive constituency, well, I've tried things like criticizing them and withholding votes from them, but all I get for that is continued marginalization. This is true since too many Dems are allowing their party to be run in this fashion.
So this brings us back to the Republican constituency. By allowing the national party to be run in such a fashion, eventually we must conclude that the outcomes are acceptable to the constituency. It may be strongly motivated by fear and war votes, but you're still responsible for what you do when you're afraid and hateful.
If the local Republican Party actually advocated and worked for a smaller and more responsible government, then it should win a stronger electoral following in Toledo. Even putting lacksadaisical campaign efforts like Ludeman's aside, it should be a well-established strategy for Toledo-area Republicans to publically break open Toledo's ruinous finances and then point out how these can be scaled down and made to work as a better value for all taxpayers. That the local Republican Party does not do this, is for me prima facie evidence that they don't agree with the principles of a smaller and more responsible government.
Care to step up, Mags? Your attitude of responsible public finance was and is your strong point on the LCC, especially when juxtaposed to the 2 other Commissioners (who never met a taxpayer's wallet that they didn't want to raid). Allow me to formally request that you try to become the head of the Lucas County Republican Party so that you can bring my abovementioned strategy to bear upon this geographic area. While industry continues to flee, Democrat-sponsored welfare programs are killing the county (and Toledo in particular), and that's not difficult to prove if you really wanted to.
AC quoted somebody: “Libertarianism is just anarchy for the rich.”
Libertarianism works in a society where prosperity is more widespread. I just read an article today, how of the 145 million (!!!) holders of credit cards in the USA, about 90 million carry monthly balances. The average APR might be 10%. Hence, by roughly equating each credit card to an individual holder (although corporate credit cards might be mixed in there), 90 million people have largely chosen to be indebted to that degree. If we get rid of such cultural examples of economic slavery, we should see Libertarian principles being applicable.
junta330 said: “The current administration is evidence of a very conflicted republican party. They support tax cuts when spending more than ever, and they support the reduction of civil liberties. Very conflicted indeed.”
I don't agree. Being conflicted would mean actual conflicts. The Republicans are far more unified than the Democrats. They are in fact a model of party unity. The Dems beat up and character-assassinate their progressives almost daily, whereas Republican squabbling is largely confined to determining not "yes or no" but in "how much".
If the Republicans are so "conflicted", then they sure seem to be sound sleepers for such bothered people. Since they aren't particularly bothered, I can only conclude they are largely happy or accepting of the current state of affairs and of most of the policies that got us all here. This is why I consider Republican self-criticism to be largely for show. They will never give up on large government. They will never admit their wars were lost before even begun. They will never admit their modern Presidents perform impeachable offenses almost monthly. Since the 1980s all they've worked for is power, and having obtained it, all they used it for was to accumulate more power. The end point of that is actual Fascism.
So, it's a good time to be armed in America. That's all I have to say.
posted by GuestZero at 04:47 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 19, 2006 #
Junta - your perspective of the Republican party leadership is the same perspective some Republicans have of the Democrat party leadership with groups like Moveon.org who seem to have, as their only agenda, 'I hate Bush.' As for Nixon being a Democrat today, some think JFK would be a Republican today. Nice speculation, but the Democrats are pretty vicious when one of their own disagrees with the 'popular group think' - think traditional Democrats like Zell Miller or Joe Liberman...And we have the same sorts of things in the Republican party so, it appears that both parties have the same problem.
But I don't believe the solution is for both parties to move to the middle. I believe that individuals/candidates/elected officials within the parties need to say what they stand for and then vote in accordance with their words. The public really doesn't know what to do when people say 'I believe X' and the vote 'Y.' And, again, that happens in both parties.
And post-election analysis is all over the board, but I think many Republicans were fed up with the lack of core Republican philosophies which is why so many lost.
GZ - what do I intend to do about it? Well, I've been doing something about it for 13 years and I'm tired. I'm tired of beating my head against a brick wall, taking a stand against such spending (like community funding) only to have my fellow Republicans publicly say they support it. I'm also tired of being criticized for being 'an obstructionist' simply because I raised questions that no one wanted asked. I disagree with the current local thinking that we all need to 'get along' especially when 'getting along' is defined as not making any waves for the majority or insisting that your ideas at least be considered, if not implemented. I believe we can respectfully disagree on certain issues, casts our votes and then continue to work together in other areas. However, that philosophy of leaving the campaign trail to embark upon the business of the office is in short supply here.
As for leading the local Republican Party as soon as I'm finished with my term - no thank you. I really need time to rest. Besides, as my husband says, this area is like a drug addict who hasn't reached rock bottom to know he needs to change. Instead, he goes back to the ballot box, year after year, for a fix of the same old philosophy...
I don't mean to sound so negative because I see lots of individuals willing to work for change: Kate and her Toledopoliticians.com, Chris and his ideasfor... websites, and you with your Sykes watch. I'm greatly encouraged by such efforts and the growing support that these efforts are getting.
But thank you for thinking that it's something I'd be good at.
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:19 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 19, 2006 #
Instead of libertarian or neocon, how about Crunchy Con? Haven't read the book yet : "How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature lovers, and their diverse tribe of countercultural conservatives plan to save America (or at least the Republican Party)"
Crunchy Con Manifesto
1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.
2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.
3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.
4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.
5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.
6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.
7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.
8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.
9. We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.”
10. Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.
posted by jr at 09:06 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 19, 2006 #
Mags said: “[Junta's] perspective of the Republican party leadership is the same perspective some Republicans have of the Democrat party leadership with groups like Moveon.org who seem to have, as their only agenda, 'I hate Bush.' ”
Look, that's not just a "perspective". It's the truth. Too many Dem leaders have built their party platform on one gargantuan but flimsy plank of "anti-Bush". It's OK to be against something. But it's NOT sufficient to avoid explaining that position logically and completely, and as well, to explain your alternatives.
(Note that this is different than the Republican perspective on the anti-war position about Iraq. Leaving Iraq IS a logical and complete choice. War's false necessity is the great blind spot of the Republican leadership.)
Mags said: “And post-election analysis is all over the board, but I think many Republicans were fed up with the lack of core Republican philosophies which is why so many lost.”
Then our system largely worked. The poorly-performing majority were knocked down a peg or two. Too bad that Pelosi and Reid -- from their own statements lately and the last 2 years -- are now obviously willing to continue the Republican pro-war and anti-labor majority philosophies. The facts that BOTH impeachment is "off the table", AND that war funding remains approved, indicate that we may as well start hoping that this so-called core Republican constituency may continue to destroy its past excesses. Crazy, isn't it?
Mags said: “I'm tired of beating my head against a brick wall, taking a stand against such spending (like community funding) only to have my fellow Republicans publicly say they support it.”
Well, its dead easy to tell you what you should have done, but what you should have done was lay down these core Republican philosophies in written form, demonstrate also in writing how these ‘fellow’ Repubs weren't abiding by them, and then demand that these RINOs depart the Republican Party to join up with the tax-and-spending Dems in the area.
A lot of Toledo pols (of either faction) actually belong to some sort of weird party that we could realistically call the "Money Velocity Party" or the "Economic Development Party". They simply believe in taxing and spending to outrageous levels.
Good luck to us all, methinks.
posted by GuestZero at 05:22 A.M. EST on Wed Dec 20, 2006 #
I know I speak for many republicans when I say many don't want John McCain and Party leader in the same sentence because of these type of laws and policies.
Many of the true conservatives of the party who were for fiscal conservativism and the ideals that we fought for in '94 have long left their posts and those that filled their shoes didn't stand for the same ideals. That's why so many choose to either vote Dem or not vote at all this past election. So to say that the big spending is the norm of the party is clearly wrong. The heart of the party has always been many of us in the middle who scream for fiscal conservativity and smaller government.
I know we are very early in the '08 presidential race but I believe if a candidate can push for a tighter managed policy they'll leave New Hampshire as the clear frontrunner. That being very significant because New Hampshire has moved from the lone new england red state to a blue state. And it was one of the few states where a candidate could run solely on fiscal conservativity and win.
The biggest problem for republicans as I see it is "Have those running for Congress in '08 learned the lesson of '04?" Judging from many I've seen I'd say no. I think Republicans can make gains in districts they barely lost but that will still give the Democrats a slim majority in the house. As an early prediction I'd say by at least 8 seats. But as usual a lot can happen in two years and this could swing either way.
posted by MikeyA at 08:44 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 20, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
